OH GOD BIOWARE WHAT THE FUCK HAVE YOU DONE

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

6: Some paragon / renegade choices were handled with more nuance in ME1 than ME2. ME2 made it really easy to just blindly choose one option or the other consistently, with the exception of the Interrupts, which you nearly always chose regardless. Other 'decisions' were just obvious no-brainers, like there's a few Paragon options in ME2 I always choose regardless of alignment. And destroying the base (as opposed to EMPing it for Illusive Man) is such a flagrantly obvious choice in the endgame that even Miranda supports that outcome and none of your squadmates oppose it, whereas EMPing leads to nearly every squadmate bitching.

This sort of bothered me because in game it seems to be such an obvious choice but outside of that it's a more complex choice. I think they could have done a lot more to make keeping the base seem like a good idea, primarily by at least pretending some of your squad wanted you to do it.

Ignoring some points, you have an opportunity to gain a greater tactical advantage over an enemy, handing it over to people who have pro humanity interests. Fantastic. But then you remember Cerebus is not only evil in its operations, but fucking incompetent. Every single thing that ever could go wrong with a Cerebus plan has.


But it doesn't matter! Because no matter what you chose, in ME3 Cerebus is doing the same thing anyway!
WHAT WAS THE POINT?!

[Azisien]

I enjoyed planet exploration a lot in ME1 but I can also say I pretty much got my fill of it in its current iteration. Most non-mission tilesets were similar or carbon copies (how many times did we all clear out the same warehouse of thugs to get the loot at the end in the side, back room?). ME2 streamlined any side missions by reducing the number of planets WITH missions, but I found each mission was different and had its own taste.

I didn't really hate the Mako that much either, I just...played ME1 enough that I didn't need something similar in ME2. Just like I had my fill of Planetary Mining in ME2, I hope it doesn't return in ME3.

We can go at this all day but in the end I pretty much side with Krylo, and only with a few points to add. I thought ME2 was a better game to PLAY than ME1, in pretty much every capacity. As far as story goes, I think I do like ME1 more but because of how story-driven these games are, I can't say I do very well splitting them up at all story wise. ME1 set the stage and showed the actors and ME2 is taking them and throwing in more and evolving a setting that is already established. It doesn't have to be an origin story again.

As far as linearity is concerned, the games seem about equal. In ME1 you could choose between a couple planets to do in what order, which maybe slightly changed how you discovered the game's mysteries at the later Same Planet.

In ME2 the game is mostly just building a sweet team to go kick ass, and you choose who to go grab/help in the order you want (or not at all barring minimums). I suppose I didn't like the Collectors that much as the enemy but I actually didn't clue in until THE GAME revealed it that Harbinger was just a Reaper sitting in Dark Space trolololololing you. Kudos to them on that.

Oh also, Shooter vs. RPG, and somehow tweaking the Shooting as "betraying the series." I've only skimmed the thread at this point but I saw some of it. PLEASE. Go play ME1 again. It is a Third Person Shooter and also there is RPG stuff. The RPG stuff isn't even particularly deep or anything, just enough to be awesome. From the little I've read on ME3 I haven't seen them stripping any more of the upgrades off. Could be wrong though. I try not to spoil myself too much and just let the game itself be my experience.

RE:

ME2 Final Decisions

I too thought the decision making to avoid people dying was pretty obvious. Most peeps I talk to did. I kind of get it though. This was a precarious balance of Dangerous Decision vs. Fan Rage. Oh yeah, it was a bit of a let down to have everyone survive the suicide mission (nope, it wasn't really). But how mad would I be if Tali got killed? Or other characters I like? How fun would I have if I had to sit there and reload the suicide mission to fulfill my completionist, survivalist agenda? I'd be mad. Especially if that Random Chance Death near the end had been five times more likely in an alternate universe to satisfy people that want HARDCOOOOOOORE DANGER.

They could have carbon copied Virmire again, I guess. But then it just would have been Virmire again. At least this was a bit of a new experiment, and I'd say a successful one. You spent the whole game gathering a squad of experts, and then you got to use them. Weee. If anything, ME3 is the better place to have a lot of inescapable deaths, during a larger climax.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by "Half Assed" Karesh

But it doesn't matter! Because no matter what you chose, in ME3 Cerebus is doing the same thing anyway!
WHAT WAS THE POINT?!

Yeah, the manner that ME3 has completely negated the relevance of that choice (and many other choices) kind of sucks.

I think it would have been more feasible for a character like Miranda / Jacob / Morinith / Legion / Zaeed / somebody to prefer you kept the base intact. It actually would have been particularly fascinating if someone you didn't expect, like Garrus, actually supported keeping the base intact from a purely logical and detached perspective. Like, despite Garrus knowing Cerberus is no good it'd actually somewhat fit his characterization to be somewhat cynical about the odds of the galaxy defeating the Reapers and therefore willing to exploit anything whatsoever that helps even their chances.
...Okay, maybe not, but still, objectively speaking even the aliens should fear Cerberus slightly less than an overwhelming Reaper invasion.

Within the context of the narrative it was plainly obvious that destroying the base was presented as not only the 'morally right' but even the pragmatic option. They overdid the negative foreshadowing / sense of foreboding with The Illusive Man to such an extent that you just knew you couldn't trust him, when it really should have remained more an open question. When even Miranda has no faith left in him, you know something's wrong.

Unfortunately, even if ME3 ultimately presents me with a surprise twist where there's some secret advantage to having left the base intact, within the context of ME2, the decision was never presented in a sufficiently evenhanded way for me to have ever even considered leaving the base intact. At least in ME1, a sufficient argument existed to justify me saving human lives with my Renegade, slightly anti-alien racist character.

[Solid Snake]

Regarding: ME2 Suicide Mission Choices

The first time I played through ME2 I did so without a strategy guide. I was a completionist, insofar as I upgraded the Normandy completely and did every Loyalty Mission before beginning the final mission. I had also read just enough spoilers to know the timing I needed to commit myself to in order to save the crew. I deliberately, however, did not read any spoilers whatsoever regarding decisions during the Suicide Mission itself.

My first playthrough resulted in only one death, doing it blind, and that's only because I had legitimate reason to suspect that Miranda would be a better choice for the Biotic Specialist than Jack or Morinith. I mean yes, Jack and Morinith are more powerful, but from like a stability / composure / leadership / ability to remain cool under fire perspective, I was convinced Jack would lose her concentration due to RAGE ISSUES and Morinith was, well, let's just say when I was making that decision I suddenly had a momentary regret of choosing Morinith over Samara because who the fuck wants to trust Morinith with that shit.

...It led to Garrus dying, which led to me saying "FUCK THAT" as he was the one character I COULDN'T let die, so I very quickly reloaded a relevant prior save and let Jack do her thing.

But I'd still argue that wasn't an obvious decision. Or maybe I just over-thought it.

Even then, without a strategy guide I correctly selected my Techie, Fireteam leaders, etc. Worst-case scenario, maybe I would have not chosen Mordin as escort for some reason (I'll never know what I would have chosen as by that time I had looked up the guide) and he might have died. So, my worst-case scenario without looking for advice and doing everything blind would have resulted in a possible maximum of 2 deaths (Garrus, Mordin) in a "suicide mission" where presumably half the cast was susceptible to dying. It was still way too easy.

Regarding: Krylo's Claim that Thane Can Die Randomly While Holding the Line

...He can't.
It's technically possible for Mordin, Tali, Kasumi or Jack to randomly die, but Thane can theoretically never be at risk of dying while Holding the Line if everyone's loyal.

Reasoning:

If everyone's Loyal, only a MAX of one character can die holding the line (it requires you to bring certain "strong line-holders" with you into battle, like Garrus / Grunt / Zaeed, AS WELL AS potentially stupidly choosing one of those "strong line-holders" as Escort, AS WELL AS being low-probability odds.)

The order of who dies (if all characters are Loyal) is:
Mordin > Tali > Kasumi > Jack > Miranda > Jacob > Garrus > Samara / Morinith > Legion > Thane > Zaeed > Grunt

Beforehand, you can send one character back as Escort, and take two in your party.
Under no circumstance, then, is Thane at risk (unless he's not loyal.)

Mordin dies. If he's either escorting or in your party, Tali dies. If she's unavailable, too, Kasumi dies.
Only three characters can be unavailable, so least probable case scenario, Jack dies. (If you're playing before the Kasumi DLC was released or didn't recruit her, in the least probable case scenario, Miranda dies.)

Of course the likelihood is low; for Jack to die, you'd have to send Mordin / Tali / or Kasumi out as escort AND have the other two in your party, which is unlikely (given all three's relative lack of strength in battle) unless you're deliberately setting things up for Jack to take the fall.

Under no circumstances is Thane at risk if everyone's loyal.

EDIT: Loyal Mordin still dies even before non-Loyal Thane if he's holding the line, but if Thane is not loyal, everyone else is loyal and Mordin is unavailable due to escorting / presence in party, yeah, that's when Thane can theoretically bite it.

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Yeah, the manner that ME3 has completely negated the relevance of that choice (and many other choices) kind of sucks.

I think it would have been more feasible for a character like Miranda / Jacob / Morinith / Legion / Zaeed / somebody to prefer you kept the base intact. It actually would have been particularly fascinating if someone you didn't expect, like Garrus, actually supported keeping the base intact from a purely logical and detached perspective. Like, despite Garrus knowing Cerberus is no good it'd actually somewhat fit his characterization to be somewhat cynical about the odds of the galaxy defeating the Reapers and therefore willing to exploit anything whatsoever that helps even their chances.
...Okay, maybe not, but still, objectively speaking even the aliens should fear Cerberus slightly less than an overwhelming Reaper invasion.

Within the context of the narrative it was plainly obvious that destroying the base was presented as not only the 'morally right' but even the pragmatic option. They overdid the negative foreshadowing / sense of foreboding with The Illusive Man to such an extent that you just knew you couldn't trust him, when it really should have remained more an open question. When even Miranda has no faith left in him, you know something's wrong.

Unfortunately, even if ME3 ultimately presents me with a surprise twist where there's some secret advantage to having left the base intact, within the context of ME2, the decision was never presented in a sufficiently evenhanded way for me to have ever even considered leaving the base intact. At least in ME1, a sufficient argument existed to justify me saving human lives with my Renegade, slightly anti-alien racist character.

They're obviously gonna pull the same thing they did with letting the council die in ME1. That is to say, they'll completely rewrite the context of the decision you made and make it stupid. I even thought that while I was playing it; "you know, when ME3 comes out, the writers are gonna ignore all the reasons I made this choice."

[Osterbaum]

But I'd still argue that wasn't an obvious decision. Or maybe I just over-thought it.

It was if you had Samara.

[BitVyper]

I totally picked Jack. I just wanted to give her a chance. I figure it ultimately made her a better person.

Samara is the obvious choice though.

Edit: Really though, I was pretending that the Runaway Five had burst through a wall in their van and generated a biotic barrier with The Blues.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by BitVyper

Samara is the obvious choice though.

Bah! It's only the obvious choice if you made the terrible moral decision when choosing between her and Morinith in Samara's sidequest.
(It is probably weird for the serious believin' Christian to object so virulently to Samara and support Morinith in their feud, but I totally have found some warped justification for it. I'm particularly prone to disliking fundamentalists because they make my friends and I look bad.)

[Sifright]

Isn't Morinth a murdering psychopath?

Also I kind of thought the biotic decision was the most obvious ones to make of the lot in the final mission I mean only one of your characters is recruited because of their sheer biotic power rather than discipline/skill with it. Jack is basically outright stated to be the most powerful human biotic ever unless I'm misremembering it's been quite some time since I played. I know I did the mission with out any loses to my core crew *the ones i recruited* but I can't remember if any of my ancillary crew died I know i didn't lose the yeoman Kelly something.

Also the final boss fight in ME2 was just ridiculous conceptually and i'm dumber for having played through it.

[Karrrrrrrrrrrresche]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

Bah! It's only the obvious choice if you made the terrible moral decision when choosing between her and Morinith in Samara's sidequest.
(It is probably weird for the serious believin' Christian to object so virulently to Samara and support Morinith in their feud, but I totally have found some warped justification for it. I'm particularly prone to disliking fundamentalists because they make my friends and I look bad.)

I think it would be harder to morally justify the killing of Morinth if Morinth wasn't also totally evil. If the decision had been whether or not to kill her because she can do this thing, or had done it once without realizing what was going on, as opposed to killing an unrepentant serial murderer who revels in seducing and killing her victims it would have been tougher.
Whether or not she needs to do what she does to survive(I can't remember if that's ever stated) she doesn't show remorse for it or compassion to her victims.