I'm am dissapointed in our Suicide Mission Mass Effect *Spoilers*

#1 Posted by LordXavierBritish (6320 posts) -

They've been building this shit up like it is some complicated web of friggin' decisions that you can't go back and chage, like doing anything in the game matters. 
 
You can do every god damn thing that increases your chances of sucess, outside of recruiting all members, right before you go. There are no big choices that influence how it turns out besides choosing which Squad member does what on the Suicide Run and even that  is just based on loyalty which is hell of easy to get and who you choose for which job. 
 
Don't get me wrong, I thought it was a fantastic ending in purely cinematic and gameplay terms. However, it is a little dissapointing that after all this hype both in and out of game I can just rewind the clock back an hour and a half and get my entire team through scott free just by choosing different people for each job. 
 
It's like0 they aren't even trying. 
 
I WONDER WHAT THIS SHIP UPGRADE WITH NO IMMEDIATE GAMEPLAY BENEFITS DOES 
 
SURELY THIS WON'T COME IN HANDY WHEN THEY TRY TO BLOW UP OUR SHIP AGAIN 
  
I'm actually distraught over the fact that my squad members didn't die over a descision I made 20 hours back, but rather a suggestion from a list of names 10 minutes ago. I could have accepted the deaths then, because then it would have felt like my desicions actually carried some weight and the reality would set in that this was a suicde mission. 
 
But no, I am justing go to start over in a few minutes and everyone is going to come out fine. 
 
And that really is the biggest problem with Mass Effect 2. Your desicions have no weight. 
 
I get that this is a triology, but is it too much to ask for my hours of investment to at least pay off somewhat? Out of what the game seems to consider the three biggest decisions in the game, 2 of them are over in about a minute. The only one that even incurred an immediate benefit was saving Wrex, and only because he helps get what you need on a few missions. 
 
Hell, I reloaded five times to save those damn Feros colonists. Ever last once. As a reward I get a mission where I bitch at an Asari and then get some creds. 
 
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe on my second playthrough the game will be completely different because there is a Human council or something.

I thought the point of all these moral choices was to create an investment both in futrue game events, and in future Mass Effect games.

Excuse me if I excepted a bit more than way to get a bigger number so I have more dialouge options. 
 
It's just so gamey now that it's all come to bear like. I feel like  I can just go through the game being entirely renegade with no consequences what so ever as long as I make sure the loyalty quests are complete.

Christ.
 
Besides that one minor quabble though, it was a pretty good game.

#2 Posted by SonicBoyster (351 posts) -

Well, in comparison with all of the other games that allow you to make universe altering decisions which carry into its sequels, I'd say Mass Effect 2 handled it pretty well.  There are other games that let you do that, right?
 
I'd rather you had been forced to lose at least one person, and I'd much rather the suicide mission have been longer, but I'm not sure your decisions are being ignored.  I think playing a renegade as opposed to playing a paragon character, or some kind of hybrid, is supposed to be more about role playing your character, and less about making a philosophical argument about how being mean to people is going to bite you in the ass.  The real decisions in Mass Effect 2 are about how you handle the genophage, whether you keep the collector base, what you do with the rogue Geth, and presumably whether you support Cerberus or reject it.  None of these decisions have immediate ramifications, but they'll either impact the gameplay or the ending of Mass Effect 3.  I'd like to have seen more done with the counsel decision, or the romantic interests, but I'm reasonably confident they're just setting those decisions up for the conclusion.  Remember, the more they try to mess with Mass Effect 2 the more they have to account for in 3.
 
I was happy enough just to keep getting emails from people I helped out in Mass Effect 1, and to hear from the Rachni queen, or to run into the woman I let go from the Krogan genophage research facility.
 
I think a part of the problem here is that the game gets less predictable the more you role play a character and the less you game the system.  I've heard people bitching all over about losing loyalties to party members or screwing up quests that I never had issues with, and part of that may have been because I was playing it safe, or just have been because I stacked my paragon status so high, or did quests in the proper order.  It kind of sucks to go through the game the first time and have everything work out perfectly, and I do think the developers were playing it a little too safe in trying to make everybody happy by making their "darkest" game in the trilogy have next to no sense of danger or forced failure, but I'm hoping they'll make up for it in Mass Effect 3.

#3 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

Silence.

#4 Edited by LeBart (302 posts) -

I absolutely agree with you. I think the main problem is that it's way too easy to get everything "right".  It should not be that easy to buy every upgrade for the Normandy. It should not be that easy to get everyone's loyalty, hell I think it should not even be possible to get everyone's loyalty. 
I love what they did with the ending, but I feel they could have done more. A character betraying you or refusing to follow your orders because you didn't get him to be loyal. Another dying because you had to chose to upgrade the Normandy instead of giving him a new weapon or something. A little stand off if the decision to blow up the station doesn't suit one of the character with you at that moment. 
Something that makes you feel that everything you did for the past 25/30 hours has an impact on what's going on during the ending. 
 
I know it would be very hard to actually pull off, but look at Dragon Age or KOTOR. Bioware knows how to make choices carry weight.

#5 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -

I actually kind of like that Mass Effect doesn't punish you for the decisions you make or at least makes it incredible obvious what will happen most of the time, as it means you can actually play the game and just have fun and not get annoying by the game pulling a twist on you.
 
I found the end mission pretty annoying in that sense, as it is basically the only place in the game where results of a decisions aren't obvious and in turn the outcome feels completly random. On my first play through I deliberatly selected squad members that I didn't care about thinking that this is the "some people will die"-spot, and well, most of them did. However when you actually pick the right guys you can make it through the mission with not a single death, nice, but the outcome is completly independed of my choice, its just the game designer pulling a twist or in this case, suprising me by not doing it. Its not fun and breaks the immersion when I have to try to outguess the game designer. In ME1 I had the same issues with Wrex, on my first play he died, as the dialog just went into a dead end leaving me no choice, so time to outguess the game designer, load a previous save, replay an hour and put lots of points in the right stat to actually get the proper dialog choice unlocked. Not fun. Same with chosing Kaiden vs Ashley, having to click button to see a character die is not fun. Having choise and result close together doesn't make it better, but at least reduces the frustration due to load and save.
 
I would prefer if they just cut out that stuff completly, as its just pointless and annoying. If there is a important choice or character death, it should be the result of myself doing or not doing something (not playing a hard mission or such), not the godly game designer dictating what will happen and me simply deciding who gets killed.

All that said, the most annoying part with Mass Effect is simply that the choices are so completly back&white, good choice always works. I would much prefer it if they game would dwidle around in a gray area where there is no good or bad, just different things you can do. I want long term consequences, just a less mechanical way to interact with the gaming world.

#6 Posted by LeBart (302 posts) -
@Grumbel said:
" but the outcome is completly independed of my choice, its just the game designer pulling a twist or in this case"
No it's not. You just have to select the right person for the job every time. If you select Grunt or Samara to go into the vent, when the game tells you that you need someone good with tech, then you cannot say the death of that character was random. Same thing with the squad leaders, you just need to pick someone suited for that role, and if you take the time to know your characters during the course of the game, the choice is easy.
 
 The only spot where it's not obvious is with the escort. You can pick Tali or Grunt, but not Taylor or Thane. Not sure why.
#7 Posted by DonChipotle (2730 posts) -
@LeBart said:
" @Grumbel said:
" but the outcome is completly independed of my choice, its just the game designer pulling a twist or in this case"
No it's not. You just have to select the right person for the job every time. If you select Grunt or Samara to go into the vent, when the game tells you that you need someone good with tech, then you cannot say the death of that character was random. Same thing with the squad leaders, you just need to pick someone suited for that role, and if you take the time to know your characters during the course of the game, the choice is easy.  The only spot where it's not obvious is with the escort. You can pick Tali or Grunt, but not Taylor or Thane. Not sure why. "
 
 
I picked Taylor for the escort and everything went swimmingly.
#8 Posted by SlayerNoMercy (67 posts) -
@LeBart:  I picked Jacob for the escort back...and he made it fine!....the only deaths i think are random are at the end when the rest of the crew has to run back and then it shows who died laying on the floor!....fucking mordin! i really liked him :(
#9 Posted by SonicBoyster (351 posts) -

Mordin dies because people don't buy his tech upgrade.  That's what I have to assume, anyway, since he seems to be the most common death amongst people who thought they did everything correctly.  The weapon upgrade purchases are not obvious purchases, because you don't want every party member with you throughout the game.  I bought his upgrade at the end because I had so many resources that there was nothing else left to pay for.

#10 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -
@LeBart: Yes, but my point is that that outcome is only obvious after you finished the mission, not upfront. Look at ME1, there you have a choice between Kaidan and Ashley, the choice however simply means that you chose who dies, you can't change that somebody dies, just who. So in ME2 you can't tell upfront that its possible to beat it  without death (its called suicide mission after all), it could have very well been that the second squad would get eaten by grue or whatever and your choice would mean who dies. Which is why I would have prefered it when the game didn't kill characters, but simply did things like change the mission. Picking wrong people should result in having a harder fight at hands or a need to go back to rescue them or whatever, not just predetermined life or death.
#11 Posted by Veektarius (4774 posts) -

I wish more of the game was like the final mission.  It actually made use of all twelve soldiers you have instead of coming up with some nonsense reason you're limited to three.  And if it means I can lose characters who aren't under my control, well, so be it.  It's a price I'm willing to pay, so long as the decision of who I should send where seems logical.

#12 Posted by SlayerNoMercy (67 posts) -
@SonicBoyster said:
" Mordin dies because people don't buy his tech upgrade.  That's what I have to assume, anyway, since he seems to be the most common death amongst people who thought they did everything correctly.  The weapon upgrade purchases are not obvious purchases, because you don't want every party member with you throughout the game.  I bought his upgrade at the end because I had so many resources that there was nothing else left to pay for. "
ahhh well shit maybe i didnt....what was his upgrade again? haha
#13 Edited by LeBart (302 posts) -
@Grumbel: But letting you chose who dies is boring. It's way more interesting for the story and the emotion that the game does not clearly tell you how to save everybody. 
In Mass Effect 1 I chose to save Ashley since she was the love interest, but think about how much more impactful that scene would have been if I didn't have had that choice. Or if the one dying was the one I was trying to rescue, in that case Ashley. I would have been sad and pissed off at the game but the story would have been better. 
 
In Final Fantasy VII, if the game had let you decide if you wanted to save Aerith, you would have saved her. And you would have missed one of the greatest moment in video game history.
#14 Posted by rhodric (281 posts) -
@LeBart said:
" I absolutely agree with you. I think the main problem is that it's way too easy to get everything "right".  It should not be that easy to buy every upgrade for the Normandy. It should not be that easy to get everyone's loyalty, hell I think it should not even be possible to get everyone's loyalty. I love what they did with the ending, but I feel they could have done more. A character betraying you or refusing to follow your orders because you didn't get him to be loyal. Another dying because you had to chose to upgrade the Normandy instead of giving him a new weapon or something. A little stand off if the decision to blow up the station doesn't suit one of the character with you at that moment. Something that makes you feel that everything you did for the past 25/30 hours has an impact on what's going on during the ending.  I know it would be very hard to actually pull off, but look at Dragon Age or KOTOR. Bioware knows how to make choices carry weight. "
Actually it isn't easy to get everything right. It only feels relatively trivial because you have the safety net of save/load and don't have to worry about the passage of time. Assuming it is impossible to get everyone's loyalty is incredibly narrow minded. Just because you aren't a charismatic leader, it doesn't mean Shepard can't get the job done. In addition to being the hero of the Citadel, he's also the nicest guy you've ever met/the ultimate badass. Who wouldn't want to follow him?
#15 Edited by Systech (4078 posts) -

I actually had the same feelings about that. There was no heads up whatsoever about upgrading your ship. 
 
EDIT: I actually only agree with that part, though.

#16 Posted by davidwitten22 (1708 posts) -

Well, I feel like this is the best response to your concerns... 
 
WAAAH!!! WAHHH! 
 
I mean really, being mad at the game because you restarted to save everyone is stupid. If you would have just played through and accepted what happened then you would have got what you seem to want. but, since you didn't want to lose your guys, you reloaded and tried to save everyone. That's your fault, not the game's fault.

#17 Posted by Grumbel (910 posts) -
@LeBart: Well, yeah, thats kind of the point. Having choice about death just leads to load/save to figure out how the game works and having that choice obscured by not making it obvious just makes it worse, as it is even more try&error. Which is why death in games with choice just never works for me, it is never a big dramatic moment, as the second step to death is always figuring out how to avoid it, which in turn breaks the immersion completly. Having it being unavoidable makes things even worse, as it becomes a "chose who to kill" game, so in that sense ME2 is doing it better, as it is avoidable and reasonable the way it is handle. But even then, it stil a click in a GUI with an uncertain outcome, I would much prefer it when those things are part of actual gameplay. Make the second squad something that is actually there in the gameworld, not something that you just hear over radio and see in a cutscene. If they are in trouble, let me get to them and help them or something like that, not just a "you clicked the wrong button in the GUI" thing where you can see the outcome 10 minutes later. In the very least they could for example simply have used a quick-time-event to save people when one screwed up the character choice.
#18 Posted by Lies (3866 posts) -
@SonicBoyster said:
" Mordin dies because people don't buy his tech upgrade.  That's what I have to assume, anyway, since he seems to be the most common death amongst people who thought they did everything correctly.  The weapon upgrade purchases are not obvious purchases, because you don't want every party member with you throughout the game.  I bought his upgrade at the end because I had so many resources that there was nothing else left to pay for. "
Nah I bought his upgrade and he still managed to die. It's better to take him with you to fight the final boss or send him back with the crew- he's just not much of a soldier.
#19 Posted by HatKing (5896 posts) -
@SonicBoyster said:
"Mordin dies because people don't buy his tech upgrade.  That's what I have to assume, anyway, since he seems to be the most common death amongst people who thought they did everything correctly.  The weapon upgrade purchases are not obvious purchases, because you don't want every party member with you throughout the game.  I bought his upgrade at the end because I had so many resources that there was nothing else left to pay for. "

I bought his tech upgrade and he died.  I went back and used Jack instead of Samara for the biotic bubble and he lived.  I dare anybody to find the logic in that. 
 
The end is messed up.  They made it a very specific set of choices to make it through with everybody and when somebody dies it holds no impact because it wasn't built into the story.  Look at ME1, when Kaiden/Ashley dies everybody sits around bummed out and you even still talk about it in ME2.  Somebody dies at the end here and they get little more than an anonymous coffin.
 
I don't think they should have taken out the fact that people can die, I like that and when I made those choices the first time through it was a tension I felt like in no other game.  They make you care for these characters and when their lives are on the line you don't want them to die.  I think they should have taken out the achievement for everybody living, it shouldn't be rewarded or punished outside the fact that the character isn't there anymore and they should have had some moment where everybody talks about who was lost.
#20 Edited by jmrwacko (2443 posts) -

I can see how the end sequence may feel a little gamey if you get the bad ending. However, I just 100%'d the game before doing the suicide mission after hearing from a friend that his game ended in Shepard and his crewmates dying, so the whole experience felt very immersive and rewarding to me. And since the only thing I knew going in was that a bad ending WAS possible, I was incredibly tense through the entire endgame sequence. When the Collector base finally exploded I felt like my team won the Superbowl.
 
@HatKing said:

I think they should have taken out the achievement for everybody living, it shouldn't be rewarded or punished outside the fact that the character isn't there anymore and they should have had some moment where everybody talks about who was lost. "
Yeah I was a little disappointed by that too. The only "true ending" to the game is the one where everyone lives. But ME2 isn't the first game to make you feel like crap for not getting the true ending. Everyone who has played Persona 4 knows that.
#21 Posted by LegionFan (9 posts) -

I hated the way it ended. Though I lost all the people I didn't care for I also lost my favorite, Legion before we even landed, when the generator got messed up he was down there and died, and I lost Garrus during the bubble thing through the Seeker storms
So does anyone know the combination so that everyone lives?

#22 Posted by Moztacular (467 posts) -

pretty sure the reason they did it the way they did was because they knew certain people would bitch and whine if a decision they made in hour one caused the death of a squad member at the end. Some of us might jump in and say "hey I'd love it if that were the case I love how a decision i make early on can come back to haunt or save me later," but for many people this would be too frustrating. (many enough that bioware made it easy to go back 20 minutes to make all the necessary changes)

#23 Posted by SonicBoyster (351 posts) -

How many million copies of Mass Effect 2 have moved since launch?  How many of the Witcher?  Mainstream console gamers aren't going to play through a 20-30 hour game twice to save somebody they really liked that they screwed accidentally at the start.  First playthrough is always the best playthrough; it's the one where everything coming at you is new, and your decisions feel like they have weight because you haven't seen all the alternatives yet.  I'd love it if Bioware made a game about deep grey choices that seem to have virtually no correlation to the events that unfold ahead of them (Not every decision in the Witcher had a result that was obvious, if any of them did), but that isn't really their thing.

#24 Posted by Rio (594 posts) -

Your choice and how much you interact with the crew matters quite a bit, playing through the game a few times at varied dedications has shown me this.

#25 Posted by Roboyto (80 posts) -
@VelvetLore04 said:
" @LeBart said:
" @Grumbel said:
" but the outcome is completly independed of my choice, its just the game designer pulling a twist or in this case"
No it's not. You just have to select the right person for the job every time. If you select Grunt or Samara to go into the vent, when the game tells you that you need someone good with tech, then you cannot say the death of that character was random. Same thing with the squad leaders, you just need to pick someone suited for that role, and if you take the time to know your characters during the course of the game, the choice is easy.  The only spot where it's not obvious is with the escort. You can pick Tali or Grunt, but not Taylor or Thane. Not sure why. "
  I picked Taylor for the escort and everything went swimmingly. "
Yep, picked Jacob for the escort and everyone lived....guess it all isnt as cut and dry as you seem to think
#26 Posted by ClownDetective (142 posts) -

I totally agree OP. All the hype about 'decisions' pretty much amounts to a hill of beans.
 
Forcing you to choose between characters at the end would have had much more weight. Hell, they could have even forced you to choose between Tali/Legion or Miranda/Jack in the main game and it would have given the story some gravitas, but as it is, the whole 'decisions' thing feels no more deep or complex than many other games (fallouts, etc).
 
And as for decisions carrying through games having a big effect, look at it properly. Romances in the first amount to a 10 minute scene with variances in dialogue, and pretty much every reference to the first game is just meeting an npc who'll say thanks or an email. Where are the big universe changing ramifications?

#27 Posted by natetodamax (19192 posts) -

The only thing I didn't like was everyone but one person surviving in my game. Thane was my only casualty, and while it was sad to see him go when the credits roll I was like "So, the epic and dangerous suicide mission turned out to be a piece of cake. Lame"

#28 Edited by ApocalypseLater (99 posts) -

Here's the thing. I like that nobody died in my playthrough. All of the work I did leading up to that point was to ensure that everyone survived the mission.  I'd have a hell of a tough time playing through the game again if a decision I made 20 hours earlier led to someone dying at the end.
 
I think, if they had made the loyalty status a little more subtle, it would have changed everything. The original Mass Effect effectively had loyalty side missions too, but it didn't play them up as key to the end game. If they had played the loyalty down a bit in the lead up to the game's release, more players would have had people die as a result of not interacting with crew members and not getting to know about their missions at all.
 
I don't think you can play up the importance of squad loyalty to the mission and then kill off a character regardless of the actions taken by the player.  Choosing between two or more teammates to die is probably the best solution if you want to kill off a character in the script without having it seem like you're taking control away from the player.  And they did that in the first game.

#29 Posted by SonicBoyster (351 posts) -

Difficulty factors into the ending too.  Reportedly if you're playing the game on casual you'll end up with more survivors than you would on a harder difficulty.  On veteran I didn't lose anybody but I had every upgrade and maximum loyalty.  And I also thought about the decisions at the end.  I really can't understand why people don't pick more appropriate characters if they actually want to get through the mission.  I guess I could see people picking Jacob or Samara as a team leader if they had no idea their decision might result in somebody dying, and then get surprised when somebody died, and maybe have a more epic experience... but if you actually want your team to survive and you listen to the dialogue it's all totally clear.  So clear that we had a thread right after the game was released about how easy it was to get everybody through the suicide mission alive.
 
I think the other issue here is that people want the best ending but they don't want to play all the way through the game to get it.  I keep hearing "I had everybody loyal but one and yet XYZ" or people saying they just didn't do loyalty quests for characters they didn't like and what have you.  Clearly not having everybody's loyalty can characters whose loyalty you do have, but screwing up your bio bubble or weakening your firing team or what have you, and in those particularly instances it was you making the choice not to help somebody you decided not to like that cost you somebody you did.  That's kinda like a long term unforseeable consequence.
 
Also somebody in here mentioned that they don't play up the ship upgrades as important?  Yeah they do, but you have to talk to your crew to hear about them and why you need them.  People who play through the game not talking to characters are also going to have a rough experience trying to get through that suicide mission as they clearly wont have any idea what is going on with the various upgrades and what have you.

#30 Posted by LeBart (302 posts) -
@Roboyto said:
" @VelvetLore04 said:
" @LeBart said:
" @Grumbel said:
" but the outcome is completly independed of my choice, its just the game designer pulling a twist or in this case"
No it's not. You just have to select the right person for the job every time. If you select Grunt or Samara to go into the vent, when the game tells you that you need someone good with tech, then you cannot say the death of that character was random. Same thing with the squad leaders, you just need to pick someone suited for that role, and if you take the time to know your characters during the course of the game, the choice is easy.  The only spot where it's not obvious is with the escort. You can pick Tali or Grunt, but not Taylor or Thane. Not sure why. "
  I picked Taylor for the escort and everything went swimmingly. "
Yep, picked Jacob for the escort and everyone lived....guess it all isnt as cut and dry as you seem to think "
Well, actually it's even more cut and dry than I thought, since you can pick anyone for the escort (as long as that person is loyal and well equiped). It's the only spot where the choice is not that obvious to make, and they allow you to select anyone.
#31 Posted by haggis (1677 posts) -

The backlash has begun. It was just a matter of time. The fact is, the game is not nearly as strict about who you choose for various assignments at the end as people think it is. You always have a choice between at least two characters (to make sure that you can always choose the two characters you want in your own final team) for each position. Sometimes more. You have more flexibility if you've got all the upgrades and the loyalty missions are all done. If you don't do the side missions, people won't be properly outfitted and they will die. We were told that months before the game even came out, so it's no big surprise.
 
As for the endings: there can really only be two endings. Sheperd lives. Shepard dies. The other details are mostly inconsequential. Yes, you can save the Collector base. But the real variation in endings won't show up until the next game, when you have to actually deal with the fallout. I'm not exactly sure what everyone is complaining about. 
 
Whether characters live or die, in the end, depends on a lot of choices. Nothing, though, has seemed random to me. Every death leads back to a decision you made. A mission you chose not to play or find. An upgrade you couldn't afford. Within those rules, the game offers a remarkable amount of variation in how you play the end. I mistakenly thought I'd 100%'d the game, and wasn't told until I was halfway through the suicide mission that I'd missed a bunch of things. When the debris fell on my guys at the end, there was a very real possibility of them being dead. I was relieved when they weren't. And even when Shepard made that final jump, I couldn't be absolutely sure he was going to make it. He did. I imagined a very mean Bioware made the 100% completion ending the one where Shepard dies. Thankfully, that wasn't the case. That first time through, every moment was a surprise. I've never felt that in any other game until now.

#32 Posted by bandro (65 posts) -

I stopped reading about a half of the way through the initial post. 
 
You have unreasonable expectations.  And besides, it's a role playing game... the onus is pretty much on you.  If you like the idea of your decisions having some weight, then don't go back and mess with any decisions, and import that very first playthrough into the next game. 
 
If you want to pick up a choose your own adventure book, and disobey any of the page-turning instructions, then you can. 

#33 Posted by bandro (65 posts) -

Actually I'd also like to add that there's a lot of room to actually mess up and "fail" in this game.  You may have been safe, but there are other people who may have overlooked certain variables earlier on that are now too late to alter.  Plus, there's a lot that determines the outcomes of the final mission... I.e. Tali may be doing her job well, but others in your squad might not be.  I screwed up my initial run through the final sequence, and lost a couple of people (Mordan died, for reasons I wouldn't have been able to foresee).  Fortunately I was able to go back and change things, but I was aware that my new decisions may cause other members of my squad to suffer. 
  
Finally, consider this... 
 
Mass Effect 1 - the argument with Wrex.  Ashley killed Wrex, I didn't have the necessary charm/intimidate points to prevent this.  Fortunately, I'd upgraded it enough and had a few outstanding points to spend.  So I was able to reload, quickly put some extra points in Charm, and keep him alive.  However, I was lucky, and for others this could be an unavoidable situation.  My point is that it can happen.  You can lose loyalty in ME2 for example, and have your favourite squad member killed, and you may not be able to change it without starting a new game.  Fortunately, Mass Effect 2 has measures in place to incite multiple playthroughs, so if it bothers you that much then you can eventually change it with a fresh start without feeling totally unproductive.  At the same time, if you value that sorta purist RPG mentality that you have, then stick with it and make sure to customise your Shepard with a sad face for the next one.

#34 Posted by immike (714 posts) -

I think that when anyone thinks this hard about it, they are going a little too far. It's not supposed to be the ultimate video game story experience ya know? Just enjoy it for what it is, and don't let others hype it up for you.

#35 Posted by xyzygy (9949 posts) -

If you do their loyalty missions, they will pretty much survive with the exception of a random might die, and you have to choose them correctly. But now, with the internet and guides for this suicide mission everywhere, how can you blame Bioware for it's fan creating guides to how to get out easily? If you play to game in solitude and pick your team mates by how you'd like to, it goes differently. When I first played through the game I picked Thane as the first squad leader because I figured he would make them stealthy - they failed to help back Tali up after closing the door. Then I picked Legion as the second leader because I figured he could process more thoughts and give better strategies - but he ended up getting shot just before the door closes. He did save everyone else though which was noble. 
 
I don't think it's fair for you to say "Bioware, you did this wrong" whie there is so much info about the suicide mission to make it passable with no deaths. That's all the fans work.  
 
Also, some people might not even want to do some loyalty quests before they go on the last mission. Which is pretty much guaranteed in someone dieing. 
 
This is why I play games BEFORE learning about it too much and watching all the videos and hearing things from other people. It completely ruins things.

#36 Edited by Stephen_Von_Cloud (1530 posts) -

I agree.  As much as I like what they are trying to do, the transparency and formulaic way they go about the mechanics that determine the outcomes is kind of lame when you look at it.  How everyone suddenly becomes loyal after one mission was lame.   
 
Specific spoilers here:
 


 
And yes the choices at the end were simple.  I expected at least to have to choose between my squad members lives or lose a few somehow, despite how  prepared I was.  ME1 even did that to a further extent than ME2 with Wrex and when you have to lose either Ashley or Kaiden.
 
I have liked both Dragon Age and Mass Effect 2, but if Bioware can improve somewhere it is in tougher choices to be made, more cloudy and gray areas to go through.  It's something that The Wticher, for example,  does a lot better.  The structure of the overall plot of their games is also pretty weak.  They do a pretty good job with the characters in ME2, some of them I like a real lot, but there isn't as much content with them as I  would have liked.  Dragon Age didn't have enough I felt and ME 2 had a good deal less than Dragon Age had.   I think it's a problem a lot of these open RPGs have lately, good side quests and characters but their overall main story leaves a lot to be desired.  It's pretty much gather your squad and or supporters, then a final battle.  I understand why that structure works but it gets old.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.