I ultimately chose synthesis. I couldn't make myself destroy the geth and EDI, not after all i did for them and gave them a future...Word. If they set the new game after ME3, they have to choose one ending as canon.That wouldn't be tough. Synthesis is too disruptive to the overall ME universe. Control is interesting, but takes the universe in a whole new direction with their new Reaper guardians/overlords. Destroy is really the best choice for a lot of reasons.
Sure, but choosing that as canon would reflect a desire to take the Mass Effect fiction in a fundamentally different direction. Destroy is the only choice that preserves the ME universe as it was seen in ME1-3.
It's a question of whether the developers want to create a game that explores a new side of the Mass Effect universe, or whether they want to create a game that answers the question, "What is the Mass Effect universe like after this happens to it?" I wager they'll go for the former.
It seemed to me that ME3 was very heavily pushing for Synthesis as the 'proper' ending (and thematically it's the one that makes the most sense), not to mention being the one that preserves the ME universe mostly intact. Destroy is a sort-of status quo reset, but it also takes out the Geth and EDI, and, if you take the Catalyst at face value, will result in the destruction of the organic species several thousand years later anyway by another race of machines.
If they do need to pick a single canon ending, I can't see them not picking Synthesis. And that's going to annoy everyone who preferred one of the other two endings.
When they were talking about ME4 being a prequel, that made a heck of a lot of sense. But they do seem to be suggesting it'll be a sequel, and I can't see how they can do that without violating the whole point of the original trilogy, that it was YOUR story. Saying it's YOUR story and then saying, "Whoops, no it isn't, here's how it really turned out regardless," would seem to be rather dishonest of them.
Sure, but choosing that as canon would reflect a desire to take the Mass Effect fiction in a fundamentally different direction. Destroy is the only choice that preserves the ME universe as it was seen in ME1-3.
If they do need to pick a single canon ending, I can't see them not picking Synthesis. And that's going to annoy everyone who preferred one of the other two endings.
Respectful of both points, this is an example of what I mentioned before. The developers have to be careful what they mean by "recognizing" what has come before - because it totally depends on which choice was decided in the end-game and which version each player embraced. You are going to tick some people off if you don't place some kind of condition at the start of your sequel that compensate for all the end-game choices.
It is correct in that the developers could instead choose to pick one ending in making that the de-facto one, but that seems to contradict the deference they are implying they would give to ME1-3. While the casual gamer may not care, you also have a strong fandom around this series that I think would create an uproar (for better or worse) over having picked one option - and that could impact sales in the long-run.
It seemed to me that ME3 was very heavily pushing for Synthesis as the 'proper' ending (and thematically it's the one that makes the most sense),
The Catalyst was pushing for it. That doesn't mean the designers were. The Catalyst viewed it as the "best" solution because it combined organic and synthetic life in a way that the Catalyst views as progress.
not to mention being the one that preserves the ME universe mostly intact.
I don't know that I'd consider a fundamental modification of every life form in the universe "intact".
Destroy is a sort-of status quo reset,
Only in the sense that it eliminates the Reapers. Every other significant choice (except re: the geth) remains: the Krogan, the Rachni, humanity's place in the council, etc.
but it also takes out the Geth and EDI,
Let's be honest: it's really just the Geth that matter. EDI is cool, but her influence outside the SR-2 is basically nil.
and, if you take the Catalyst at face value, will result in the destruction of the organic species several thousand years later anyway by another race of machines.
You shouldn't take the Catalyst at face value. And the Stargazer's presence in the end cutscene would indicate that organic life persists for quite some time.
If they do need to pick a single canon ending, I can't see them not picking Synthesis. And that's going to annoy everyone who preferred one of the other two endings.
I really have a hard time picturing them picking Synthesis.
But the issue of trying to please everyone who picked one of the other endings is just something they're going to have to deal with. I daresay most ME3 players consider Destroy the "true" ending simply because it allows for the survival of Shepard.
To boot, Bioware has actual play statistics on which ending was most popular. They know which version of the universe most people chose.
When they were talking about ME4 being a prequel, that made a heck of a lot of sense. But they do seem to be suggesting it'll be a sequel, and I can't see how they can do that without violating the whole point of the original trilogy, that it was YOUR story.
Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3 were your story. The Mass Effect universe as a whole is its own entity, and is controlled by the people who create canon content for it. The original trilogy is your story, and if you want to call that your own personal canon, you're welcome to. The Mass Effect universe has to go somewhere, though. They'll pick an ending and that will be that.
Saying it's YOUR story and then saying, "Whoops, no it isn't, here's how it really turned out regardless," would seem to be rather dishonest of them.
Not dishonest, just a reality of interactive world design.
I just think that mass effect 4 will most probably be the first contact war...or c-sec...
It would be kinda awesome to play a game like L.A. Noire but set on the citadel. Imagine all the cultures and ways to murder...
That would be really cool.
There's another sort of game I'd love to see in the ME universe. Think Dredd + Rogue-like + Citadel-ward-skyscraper-just-after-ME3.
I think it's possible they will continue very far in the future, at the time when Buzz Aldrin's character and that child talk, when technical advancement is so great that the differences between Synthesis and other endings are unclear, like the legend about the Shepherd.
|
If they pushed it 100 or so years in the future, I think they could easily get away with either Destruction or Control.
Synthesis would take a complete dedication to that ending as EVERYTHING would have to be a techno-organic hybrid. Granted they could do it anyway and explain in the Destruction and Control flagged games that some kind of Reaper tech was discovered that would replicate the Synthesis Wave and hand wave that EVERY sentient being in the galaxy agreed to it.
I can actually see them going with Control, with Shepard being a god-like being controlling the Reapers and taking them out of the galaxy again once he/she's used them for reconstruction, and fading into myth and legend by the time the Stargazer's time-line comes around.
Not saying Shepard couldn't fade into legend with Destruction ,esp if you get the Shepard Lives ending, but the idea of a god-like consciousness controlling the Reapers is evocative, at least to me.
Nor would I count out the Geth or EDI either. Sure, the Catalyst said that Destruction would eliminate all the Reapers and anything using Reaper tech such as the Geth, EDI, and Shepard (remember, Reaper based bionic implants), but Destruction is the ONLY ending where Shepard lives...
I think I'm one of the few who liked the idea that Dragon Age 2 had nothing to do with my Warden and told a story of someone new in a different part of the Thedas with only mentions of events from the first game. So I would be more than happy to play a Mass Effect game in the vein of LA Noir, or Red Dead Redemption, or whatever. Something on a smaller scale and more personal. Something along the lines of Dragon Age 2 even, just...you know...without the obvious reusing of maps. Over. And Over. For locations that are clearly meant to be completely different. *ahem*
Anyway. There is a lot of galaxy out there, and there are plenty of other stories to tell that don't involve Shepard.
I can actually see them going with Control, with Shepard being a god-like being controlling the Reapers and taking them out of the galaxy again once he/she's used them for reconstruction, and fading into myth and legend by the time the Stargazer's time-line comes around.
So as discussed, it is possible with some "messaging" of events/timeline then to make any ending work.
That being said, I do think Control leaves you with more a status-quo (i.e. the Mass Effect universe as is - Geth, EDI, same politics, worlds, remain) setup. As pointed out, it allows for Shepard to essentially remove the Reapers from the Galaxy and allow it to operate without the threat of annhilation in the future. Mind you, Control is one of my least favorite options - it smacks too much of "indoctrination theory" under a different guise. But in terms of creating a similar setup for a sequel, well...
Let's be honest: it's really just the Geth that matter. EDI is cool, but her influence outside the SR-2 is basically nil.
Based on the implications of ME3's storyline, that may not wholly be the final role of EDI. The Geth storyline is really concluded by the end of the game - they have started some sort of peace with their creators and changed their role in the galaxy thanks to Legion's sacrifice. But ME3 gives EDI's story (depending on Shepard's interactions) a "human" take that the player can empathize with.
One of the themes of Mass Effect has been the growth and corruption of AIs - that as they evolve they come into conflict with their creators, and it can't be changed. The story implies more than once that EDI is "different" than other AI's and non-organics - sympathetic and cooperative maybe. The notion is that Shepard's actions and responses can craft that result. It's as a result of it that she wants to grow beyond her current "directives" - especially in understanding human behavior.
Given that recurring idea of AI evolution, it's possible the developers will use this notion to expand her role (or some similar AI concept) in a future ME game universe.
Word. If they set the new game after ME3, they have to choose one ending as canon.That wouldn't be tough. Synthesis is too disruptive to the overall ME universe. Control is interesting, but takes the universe in a whole new direction with their new Reaper guardians/overlords. Destroy is really the best choice for a lot of reasons.
True enough. Sadly the BioWare people are as recalcitrant in acknowledging this as the Paizo people are about updating their setting timeline with AP consequences. "But the player's choices, aaah!". ^^
And do people really want to play a game where every character ( and every organic thing ) has to be rendered with additional circuitboard texture ( and glowy eyes for the humanoids )? I mean, that may work for Tron, but not for a setting where we are supposed to play humans in the "real world".
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think any story set after the end is a betrayal of everything the story stood for - and a stupid one at that. I know I for one would have very little interest in such a game, especially since it would feel like nothing but a slap in the face given all the other options available. You can tell stories during the war (my preference) or before Shepard's time and make them compelling.
Don't spit in my face.
I think any story set after the end is a betrayal of everything the story stood for - and a stupid one at that. I know I for one would have very little interest in such a game, especially since it would feel like nothing but a slap in the face given all the other options available. You can tell stories during the war (my preference) or before Shepard's time and make them compelling.
Don't spit in my face.
What would your response be to being told that it's actually pretty selfish of you to want them to effectively end what is arguably the most important sci-fi universe of our generation solely for the sake of you not being exposed to a version of that universe that is the result of choices you didn't make?
I mean, good lord. If you extend this far enough game developers only end up with two choices: 1) don't ever make games that allow the player to have significant impact over the game universe, or 2) put an end mark on their universe's chronology after a handful of games.
Also, gamers need to stop acting like creative decisions by IP holders amount to someone spitting in their face. It's not your universe, no matter how successful they were in making you believe that the first time around.
Given EA's latest moronity in demanding queueing for single player in Sim City, I can tell you that ME Forever or whatever is going to have to be one utterly and monstrously amazing game for me to even think about buying it.
What would your response be to being told that it's actually pretty selfish of you to want them to effectively end what is arguably the most important sci-fi universe of our generation solely for the sake of you not being exposed to a version of that universe that is the result of choices you didn't make?
I mean, good lord. If you extend this far enough game developers only end up with two choices: 1) don't ever make games that allow the player to have significant impact over the game universe, or 2) put an end mark on their universe's chronology after a handful of games.
Also, gamers need to stop acting like creative decisions by IP holders amount to someone spitting in their face. It's not your universe, no matter how successful they were in making you believe that the first time around.
The thing is, the Mass Effect trilogy wasn't a free form sandbox game like Skyrim. It was not a universe created to run around in and do as you want in one game. Instead it was predicated from its earliest days as being a game in which your decisions have an impact on what happens. It was supposed to be your story. A story where you got to decide what the ending was. To take an entire concept that was marketed as allowing you to tell your own story, and once you've finished it decide that the universe continues along one predetermined path, is frankly offensive to me. You sold me an idea. Throwing that idea out the window so you can sell me something else isn't really appealing to me.
This is especially true, as I noted earlier, because the hardline stance I've taken here doesn't mean you have to completely cease telling stories in that universe. It's a huge universe with a huge (and awesome) history. There are a dozen good stories you can tell that don't destroy the 'tell your own story' aspects of Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3.
All of that said, they can do whatever they want. As you point out, it is their IP. If they want to create a sequel that throws out the first story that is their right. It is my right however to observe that I find it offensive, and that I'd be disinclined to support them in such an endeavor as a result. I don't think there is anything selfish about objecting to being sold a(nother) bill of goods by EA.
TL:DR Mass Effect was not the same as other games regarding 'tell your own story', and thus plays by different rules my in opinion.
The thing is, the Mass Effect trilogy wasn't a free form sandbox game like Skyrim. It was not a universe created to run around in and do as you want in one game. Instead it was predicated from its earliest days as being a game in which your decisions have an impact on what happens. It was supposed to be your story. A story where you got to decide what the ending was.
And you did. The Shepard trilogy was yours to manipulate. But the Shepard trilogy is over. It was three games. Now it's done. The Mass Effect universe is still there, and you don't have ownership over it - nor were you ever promised ownership over it. You got to tell Shepard's story, but that's all the ownership you were ever promised or given.
To take an entire concept that was marketed as allowing you to tell your own story, and once you've finished it decide that the universe continues along one predetermined path, is frankly offensive to me.
Why? In what way are they offending you? You had your story, you determined the outcome, and now it's over and you have new stories to explore.
You sold me an idea. Throwing that idea out the window so you can sell me something else isn't really appealing to me.
They didn't throw that idea out the window. What they told you remains as true as it ever did. And not having any appeal is different than choosing to be offended by something that doesn't actually affect you in any way.
This is especially true, as I noted earlier, because the hardline stance I've taken here doesn't mean you have to completely cease telling stories in that universe. It's a huge universe with a huge (and awesome) history. There are a dozen good stories you can tell that don't destroy the 'tell your own story' aspects of Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3.
But you're still putting a cap on their timeline, and you're still telling the game's creators what they can and can't do with their own universe. Not to mention telling fans of the series who would love to see a post-Reapers Mass Effect game that they shouldn't get their wish because it would offend you too much.
But you're still putting a cap on their timeline, and you're still telling the game's creators what they can and can't do with their own universe. Not to mention telling fans of the series who would love to see a post-Reapers Mass Effect game that they shouldn't get their wish because it would offend you too much.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm expressing my feelings on the matter, and where I'm likely to put my money. Fundamentally this is a question of opinion, and I've offered mine. I'm not certain why you think it worthwhile to sit here and try and pick it apart?
If you don't understand why it would bother someone to see them set games after the main trilogy - thereby locking in a canon ending - I don't know what else we have to discuss. Clearly we have an entirely different perspective on this.
Why not make new games that each chooses a different ME3 ending?
Why not make new games that each chooses a different ME3 ending?
Because a lot of people hate the other endings and you effectively beginning production with the assumption that a section of your core customer base will not want to buy your game. Also, game companies can't exactly churn out three quality titles at the same time. If one of the three games turns out to be a disappointment, you'd have fractured your fan base even more.
---
As for the whole "no canon ending" thing, I'm firmly on Scotts side here ( and how weird is that ). I find a static setting with no progression to be much harder to swallow than having some choices of mine invalidated. Be it with the Mass Effect universe or Golarion.
I wasn't really serious, for the reasons you stated. Still, I really want that Synthesis game.
|
What would your response be to being told that it's actually pretty selfish of you to want them to effectively end what is arguably the most important sci-fi universe of our generation solely for the sake of you not being exposed to a version of that universe that is the result of choices you didn't make?
1. Most important sci-fi universe of our generation? Wow, really? I'm sorry, but I can't buy into that. Maybe if you mean within video games only, and are defining "generation" as the Wii/PS3/360 era.
2. Sometimes things should be allowed to end while they're on top. As much as Star Wars fans clamored for years about wanting the prequel trilogy, I'd imagine a fair number of them now wish it had never been filmed. Look at Resident Evil: it was the flagship of an entire gaming genre in it's early years...it's now little more than a joke, and should be put out of it's misery. Do you really want the same for Mass Effect?| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
1. Most important sci-fi universe of our generation? Wow, really? I'm sorry, but I can't buy into that. Maybe if you mean within video games only, and are defining "generation" as the Wii/PS3/360 era.
It's not my argument, but I happen to agree with it.
2. Sometimes things should be allowed to end while they're on top. As much as Star Wars fans clamored for years about wanting the prequel trilogy, I'd imagine a fair number of them now wish it had never been filmed. Look at Resident Evil: it was the flagship of an entire gaming genre in it's early years...it's now little more than a joke, and should be put out of it's misery. Do you really want the same for Mass Effect?
Yes.
If we'd allowed Star Wars to end when it was on top, sure, we wouldn't have the prequel trilogy (mind you, I never considered them an insult to Star Wars), but we also wouldn't have had:
- X-Wing
- TIE Fighter
- Dark Forces/Jedi Knight
- Rebellion
- Shadows of the Empire
- Knights of the Old Republic
- Battlefront
- Most of the excellent novel series
- Clone Wars series
- LEGO Star Wars
- Etc.
I really don't think the world of entertainment would have been better off without the things I listed above.
Esp. KOTOR!
|
|
I am torn on the subject of follow up. I really enjoyed the Mass Effect series. I would tend to agree with Mass Effect being the best Sci Fi rpg experience I have ever played (Kotor was awesome just not Scifi). The great multi player was just icing on the cake.
However, the central conflict of the setting is gone (unless control becomes default). The repears and those that they controlled gave a real purpose to your actions. I do not want the series to go downhill into shooting other people simply for the sake of shooting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, the central conflict of the setting is gone (unless control becomes default). The repears and those that they controlled gave a real purpose to your actions. I do not want the series to go downhill into shooting other people simply for the sake of shooting.
If you'll recall, the Star Trek universe seems to have done just fine without a defining central conflict. The Mass Effect universe has dreadnought-loads of potential conflict, so all that's left is for the next game's story team to decide which of those powderkegs to ignite.
As I understood the endings - any one of them, since the Catalyst was used the Mass Relay network basically functioned as the delivery system for whatever colored wave you picked at the end. This means, as far as I know, your choices effected only this particular galaxy. Any other galaxy or distant area cut off from the Mass Relay network would have been unaffected.
Maybe I'm wrong and the effects were absolutely universal in scope, but I think it's limited to the Milky Way and extra-galactic threat(s) will drive future games.
As I understood the endings - any one of them, since the Catalyst was used the Mass Relay network basically functioned as the delivery system for whatever colored wave you picked at the end. This means, as far as I know, your choices effected only this particular galaxy. Any other galaxy or distant area cut off from the Mass Relay network would have been unaffected.
Maybe I'm wrong and the effects were absolutely universal in scope, but I think it's limited to the Milky Way and extra-galactic threat(s) will drive future games.
This would also surprise me, given the wealth of antagonist options from within the extant ME universe, and the fact that the Reapers were already a sort of extra-galactic threat (in the sense that they hid out in dark space).
Yeah, the Andromeda Galaxy Reapers would make a poor antagonist, after I blew "our galaxies" Reapers to shreds.
Did I mention that the logic of the Catalyst makes no damn sense? Its whole spiel about "synthetics will drink your milkshake, it's inevitable" can only be taken seriously if one does not take into account that there are a whole lot more galaxies than our own and ( as far as we know ), by the Catalysts logic they should all be ruled by synthetics by now.
Anyway, I'd better not think too deeply about this or my Citadel-DLC buzz will evaporate. It's still holding after a few weeks. ^^
|
|
They could always pick up the Dark Energy/Dark Matter plot line they abandoned if they decided to "go big".
But personally I wouldn't mind a smaller, personal, focus in the next game. As stated, there are a TON of possible antagonists left in the galaxy that could be used as either a prequel or a sequel.
Which reminds me, I don't think I would want a prequel. It'd be like Halo: Reach, it was a fun game but I couldn't get invested in any of the characters because I knew what would happen, I knew how the game HAD to end. As such I would have a hard time playing a Mass Effect game set during the First Contact War. Suddenly my favorite race in the ME universe are the antagonists? Well ok...not suddenly but I hope you'd get what I'm going for. It would just be weird and, again, I would know how it ends. I cant change it, I can't forge my own story.
And your random question for the day: So Shepard can die at the end of Mass Effect 2...so what happens when Mass Effect 3 opens? Do they just hand wave it? Pretend it didn't happen and just chalk it up to Bioware talking before really thinking it out? Inquiring minds want to know...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Along the lines of a less extra-galatic threat, there's also a whole host of mass effect relays that are still dark.
The ideal post-Mass Effect 3 game I would like would be one where you and a small team go through a repaired but previously dark relay to explore what lies beyond. I think the first game in the series had a greater feeling of exploration than the subsequent two titles, and I'd love to see that aspect brought to the fore once again.
Yeah, the Andromeda Galaxy Reapers would make a poor antagonist, after I blew "our galaxies" Reapers to shreds.
Did I mention that the logic of the Catalyst makes no damn sense? Its whole spiel about "synthetics will drink your milkshake, it's inevitable" can only be taken seriously if one does not take into account that there are a whole lot more galaxies than our own and ( as far as we know ), by the Catalysts logic they should all be ruled by synthetics by now.
Anyway, I'd better not think too deeply about this or my Citadel-DLC buzz will evaporate. It's still holding after a few weeks. ^^
I think the whole point is that the Catalyst's thinking is flawed, and that Shepard's actions demonstrate this. You have to be pretty crazy-reactionary in order for your solution to the synthetic problem to be, "Let's construct a race of super-synthetics to occasionally wipe out all advanced life so that they never create their own super-synthetics!"
It's likely that no one in the ME universe has any knowledge of anything going on in any other galaxy, simply because there is no way to communicate with or travel between them.
And your random question for the day: So Shepard can die at the end of Mass Effect 2...so what happens when Mass Effect 3 opens? Do they just hand wave it? Pretend it didn't happen and just chalk it up to Bioware talking before really thinking it out? Inquiring minds want to know...
If your Shepard died at the end of Mass Effect 2, you cannot import your save into Mass Effect 3. If you want to play Mass Effect 3 and you have no save to import, you just start a new ME3 game with one of assumed pasts for Shepard (just like if you were playing ME3 without having played the first two games).
Bioware came up with the creative vision for ME2 and ME3 at the same time, so they knew what they were getting into by allowing for Shepard to be killed in ME2.
Amusingly, Shepard being killed in ME2 probably leads to the annihilation of the galaxy's advanced races by the Reapers, so it's really easy to see that outcome as a losing one.
My advice? Just make sure your Shepard survives.
So I played through all the Citadel DLC stuff then picked back up and realized after Chronos Station that I probably could have had Tali and Miranda at the party too if I'd waited longer! So I abandoned that game and loaded a save I had from just prior to installing the DLC.
Am I wasting time backtracking or am I right in thinking Miranda and Tali will join in the fun if I wait until after the event at Santcuary to throw the party?
Of course they will. Great conversations to be had.
"Shuuuuum. Shuuuuum". ^^
Ahhhh - good! I nearly coughed up a lung laughing when Grunt was playing doorman. Maybe this time Vega won't be all over Ashley either - that ticked me off!
|
There is plenty of places for the ME universe to go. Consider this is the first galactic civilization that will be allowed to evolve beyond the arbitrary stopping point created by the Reapers. What if the Reapers were right, and this is the beginning of the end for all biological life in the galaxy?
There is plenty of places for the ME universe to go. Consider this is the first galactic civilization that will be allowed to evolve beyond the arbitrary stopping point created by the Reapers. What if the Reapers were right, and this is the beginning of the end for all biological life in the galaxy?
I think the whole, "Oh no, synthetics are going to wipe out organic life!" theme has probably run its course for the foreseeable future.
Meh, I started playing Mass Effect 1 a 3rd time (or is it the 4th). I bought the PS3 Trilogy for the hell of it. I hated the controls and went back to my old PC version.
I think I'm finally getting into it. I scoured the galaxy clean and finished Feros from the main plotline. All I have left is a pair of side missions concerning Cerberus, Noveria and Vermire from the main plot, and possibly an out of character (for me) side mission to kill 2 mobsters for the witch in the Citadel.
The PC controls are just so much better than the console for the first game. My good buddy says the controls on the PS3/Xbox are like night and day going from the first game to the second and third, so I may want to get back into the console versions for 2 and 3.
Is this true or do you guys think I might have to buy new copies of 2 and 3 for the PC.
Two and Three were made with console controllers in mind - those two are much nicer with a controller because of it. Unless you have some way of moving your data from the PC to PS3, you'll start ME2 with a blank slate.
I still prefer a mouse and keyboard, but I think you'll be satisfied switching back to your PS3.
Two and Three were made with console controllers in mind - those two are much nicer with a controller because of it. Unless you have some way of moving your data from the PC to PS3, you'll start ME2 with a blank slate.
There's an expansion for ME2 which let you pick the outcome of important choices from ME1. If that's available for consoles, it could mitigate the issue.
Two and Three were made with console controllers in mind - those two are much nicer with a controller because of it. Unless you have some way of moving your data from the PC to PS3, you'll start ME2 with a blank slate.There's an expansion for ME2 which let you pick the outcome of important choices from ME1. If that's available for consoles, it could mitigate the issue.
It is available to consoles, but you still port in without extra materials, credits, and most importantly paragon / renegade points. The first two are a minor loss, but not starting with that extra reserve of paragon / renegade makes it rough in Mass Effect 2 because if you miss a substantial number of renegade or paragon options (basically, if you don't go nearly 100% one or the other with every choice you get) you won't be able to solve the Legion / Tali problem or the Jack / Miranda problem.
Honestly, for me, I found that annoying as hell because it sharply limited what I could do in terms of roleplaying if I wanted to be able to solve simple arguments (the easiest way around it for me was to race to do Jack / Miranda loyalty first, so I could get that problem out of the way quickly and then go back to playing normally, but still an inconvenience).
It is available to consoles, but you still port in without extra materials, credits, and most importantly paragon / renegade points. The first two are a minor loss, but not starting with that extra reserve of paragon / renegade makes it rough in Mass Effect 2 because if you miss a substantial number of renegade or paragon options (basically, if you don't go nearly 100% one or the other with every choice you get) you won't be able to solve the Legion / Tali problem or the Jack / Miranda problem.
I didn't care much for ME1, so there's no way in heck I'd be going through all that on multiple characters just to see Jack and Miranda make out (up? Whichever!) :)
Ironically, I did actually play all the way through ME2 just to get a new and more satisfactory save game for ME3, once I realized how certain ME2 choices would impact the storyline. And also because the story in ME3 is really nonsensical if you don't import an ME2 character.
But speaking of ME3, I recently gave multiplayer a shot and I have to say I'm having a surprisingly good time of it. Especially when playing with a couple of friends (thank you SimCity).
But speaking of ME3, I recently gave multiplayer a shot and I have to say I'm having a surprisingly good time of it. Especially when playing with a couple of friends (thank you SimCity).
Yeah, I really enjoyed it - other than the stupid card packs. I'm still (350+ games in, most of which have been gold) waiting to unlock a lot of weapons and characters.
Yeah, I really enjoyed it - other than the stupid card packs. I'm still (350+ games in, most of which have been gold) waiting to unlock a lot of weapons and characters.
I'm not fond of the random nature of those cards, but at least it's not completely unrealistic to save up for new stuff through in-game credits, which is what I was worried about the most.
That many gold games with still stuff to unlock is not very encouraging though. I've unlocked most classes at this point (roughly everything but the one I want), but I'd hate to think I'm 300+ games away from the last ones.
I'm a diehard altaholic. The card system is kicking me hard. :)
But speaking of ME3, I recently gave multiplayer a shot and I have to say I'm having a surprisingly good time of it. Especially when playing with a couple of friends (thank you SimCity).Yeah, I really enjoyed it - other than the stupid card packs. I'm still (350+ games in, most of which have been gold) waiting to unlock a lot of weapons and characters.
I'm the opposite - I love the booster pack system and it's part of what keeps me playing. The new pack options that let you choose whether you're trying to unlock characters or weapons should help with that problem.
Any suggestions on good classes to play on gold?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Loved the Citadel DLC! I like the back and forth banter of the squad mates. It reminds me of the shadow broker DLC for ME2. I wish they made all the missions have engaging dialogue like that. Seeing the whole gang together for a mission and party was also an awesome part of the DLC.
Agreed. I loved that the whole team went on the mission, you just picked which members stuck with you. I'd really like to see future games do more of that.
"UNCLE URDNOT HAS A PRESENT FOR YOU! RRRRRRRAAGGHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
Any suggestions on good classes to play on gold?
Depends on your playstyle. Because I'm thin on firearms I tend to go power heavy classes.
The Human Adept on a close quarters map using singularity and shockwave can be devastating. Similarly an N7 Fury can dominate in such situations. On larger maps I tend to run the Drell Adept, using the reave + grenade combo to set up huge biotic explosions.
The Asari Valk is a sick tank capable of setting up big biotic explosions and leaching shields to stay alive. When the group is a little squisher I'll sometimes run her with a heavy shotgun. Similarly tough, but on the opposite side of the gun/power spectrum, is the Turian Sentinel. With the mattock (or harrier if you have it) and overload + incendiary rounds you can set up some sick explosions while taking a brutal beating and stripping shields for your team.
Finally, the Krogan Vanguard is almost unstoppable if played properly - capable of taking tremendous punishment for the team while dishing out big damage with a Reegar and charge + melee.
Also popular - but not favored by me - are the turian ghost (with a harrier or mattock), the solarian infiltrator (with a black widow), and geth infiltrator (with a shotgun). These guys might be three of the strongest classes in the game, but I'm not particularly skilled with the cloak mechanic - and find it tedious.
Depends on your playstyle. Because I'm thin on firearms I tend to go power heavy classes.
The Human Adept on a close quarters map using singularity and shockwave can be devastating. Similarly an N7 Fury can dominate in such situations. On larger maps I tend to run the Drell Adept, using the reave + grenade combo to set up huge biotic explosions.
The Asari Valk is a sick tank capable of setting up big biotic explosions and leaching shields to stay alive. When the group is a little squisher I'll sometimes run her with a heavy shotgun. Similarly tough, but on the opposite side of the gun/power spectrum, is the Turian Sentinel. With the mattock (or harrier if you have it) and overload + incendiary rounds you can set up some sick explosions while taking a brutal beating and stripping shields for your team.
Finally, the Krogan Vanguard is almost unstoppable if played properly - capable of taking tremendous punishment for the team while dishing out big damage with a Reegar and charge + melee.
Also popular - but not favored by me - are the turian ghost (with a harrier or mattock), the solarian infiltrator (with a black widow), and geth infiltrator (with a shotgun). These guys might be three of the strongest classes in the game, but I'm not particularly skilled with the cloak mechanic - and find it tedious.
Cool. I need to get more practice in with my Fury and Geth Infiltrator. I tend to default to my N7 Shadow, which absolutely destroys on Bronze and Silver, but it tends to be silly-easy to play. I don't want to handicap myself by neglecting classes that actually require some level of skill to be effective.