The game of the year lists are out. The nominees have been argued, and the winners have been chosen. For most, this winner is Mass Effect 2. Sequel to the well-received Mass Effect back in (if you can believe it) 2007. Mass Effect carries a very specific attribute that we’ve never had before. It’s not a game, it’s a world.

When I say its a world, I mean BioWare handed us a universe expanding countless planets and solar systems containing various races and history on a plate and gave us the knife. They didn’t choose just anybody for us to play, but the most influential figure in the universe to date, Commander Shepard. The key thing to realize is that Shepard is only making history when you’re holding the controller. This introduces a very unique trait that is given to the player. Choice.

Choice can be argued to exist in all games, but in Mass Effect it allows the world to adapt to your decisions. As it turns out essentially killing off a entire warlike race through genocide can really piss them off. In Mass Effect you deal with this dilemma directly, and it affects your world. At the end of Mass Effect 2 you have to make some very important decisions ultimately deciding who lives and who doesn’t. I lost three loyal squad mates on the final mission. Not because I didn’t like them (although I could care less if Jack’s rotting corpse lays in that elevator), but because I made the wrong choices. Yes, you can go search for a gigantic flow chart emphasizing the choices I should have made but the real question is: Does it matter? 

This could easily go into politics and religion in a blink of an eye, but I’m going to keep it based solely on Mass Effect, if I can.

What makes these choices wrong?

It’s something I’ve been trying to come up with ever since 3…erm…2 of my most trusted comrades were lost in the midst of my suicide mission. For many, these wrong choices can be cured by playing through the game again and following a specific guideline to keep everyone alive. If you look at the achievements it even rewards it. This could also be just a way to have replay value in a game without multi player, but the point remains. Why should I have to conclude this chapter in the most perfect way? I mean, it was supposed to be tragic. The whole game built up to it. Everyone kept talking about giving their lives if they needed to, and we want to have the same ending as everyone else? Doesn’t that effectively take my 50+ hours of gameplay and throw it to the Vorcha… or dogs? I know it’s a lot of questions, but I honesty can’t answer them. I’m just baffled why people want to keep games non-linear when the same people will complain that straight lines are so 2000 and late (oh, yeah, I just referenced that).

So, if I could cause you to do anything, I want you to think about it. Why not, stick with your decisions and save humanity without those friends of yours?—If your Shepard died in the end, well, then that just sucks.

I think BioWare would like the experience to be your own, not the same as the next guy behind you in line at midnight come the third iteration. 

Games are telling stories, and as I’ve said before they contain one extremely unique ability: to let you make the actions. If a game is created to follow that simple purpose don’t ignore it, and complete your own story arch. I know I’m going to—I just hope saving Earth doesn’t require a singing, alien scientist. 

Note: Playing through it all again is a blast and I recommend it, but you should keep that as a separate storyline.

 The game of the year lists are out. The nominees have been argued, and the winners have been chosen. For most, this winner is Mass Effect 2. Sequel to the well-received Mass Effect back in (if you can believe it) 2007. Mass Effect carries a very specific attribute that we’ve never had before. It’s not a game, it’s a world.

When I say its a world, I mean BioWare handed us a universe expanding countless planets and solar systems containing various races and history on a plate and gave us the knife. They didn’t choose just anybody for us to play, but the most influential figure in the universe to date, Commander Shepard. The key thing to realize is that Shepard is only making history when you’re holding the controller. This introduces a very unique trait that is given to the player. Choice.

Choice can be argued to exist in all games, but in Mass Effect it allows the world to adapt to your decisions. As it turns out essentially killing off a entire warlike race through genocide can really piss them off. In Mass Effect you deal with this dilemma directly, and it affects your world. At the end of Mass Effect 2 you have to make some very important decisions ultimately deciding who lives and who doesn’t. I lost three loyal squad mates on the final mission. Not because I didn’t like them (although I could care less if Jack’s rotting corpse lays in that elevator), but because I made the wrong choices. Yes, you can go search for a gigantic flow chart emphasizing the choices I should have made but the real question is: Does it matter? 

This could easily go into politics and religion in a blink of an eye, but I’m going to keep it based solely on Mass Effect, if I can.

What makes these choices wrong?

It’s something I’ve been trying to come up with ever since 3…erm…2 of my most trusted comrades were lost in the midst of my suicide mission. For many, these wrong choices can be cured by playing through the game again and following a specific guideline to keep everyone alive. If you look at the achievements it even rewards it. This could also be just a way to have replay value in a game without multi player, but the point remains. Why should I have to conclude this chapter in the most perfect way? I mean, it was supposed to be tragic. The whole game built up to it. Everyone kept talking about giving their lives if they needed to, and we want to have the same ending as everyone else? Doesn’t that effectively take my 50+ hours of gameplay and throw it to the Vorcha… or dogs? I know it’s a lot of questions, but I honesty can’t answer them. I’m just baffled why people want to keep games non-linear when the same people will complain that straight lines are so 2000 and late (oh, yeah, I just referenced that).

So, if I could cause you to do anything, I want you to think about it. Why not, stick with your decisions and save humanity without those friends of yours?—If your Shepard died in the end, well, then that just sucks.

I think BioWare would like the experience to be your own, not the same as the next guy behind you in line at midnight come the third iteration. 

Games are telling stories, and as I’ve said before they contain one extremely unique ability: to let you make the actions. If a game is created to follow that simple purpose don’t ignore it, and complete your own story arch. I know I’m going to—I just hope saving Earth doesn’t require a singing, alien scientist. 

Note: Playing through it all again is a blast and I recommend it, but you should keep that as a separate storyline.

I completely agree, well said sir!!! 
 
Out of curiosity whom met their maker on your voyage of the damned?

I appreciate the sentiment, but the fact that there are canon decisions within the mass effect universe seems to kind of undermine it. 

I absolutely think the same way, I did manage to save everyone in my squad on my first playthough (lost the entirety of the Normandy's crew, though) but I don't think there is any wrong decision you can make in Mass Effect. Reloading saves and attempting to rectify "mistakes" (or even a second playthrough with the same character) goes against one of Mass Effect's greatest features - that you get to shape the story. It always pains me to see people complain when they didn't manage to secure someone's loyalty or had some characters die and state that they intend to reload a save and do things "better". This is also why I don't have any problem with the way Mass Effect 2 imposes a time limit on you at the end of the game - so what if you dilly-dallied and lost a chunk of your crew? That just means you got to witness another unique development.
 
I'm on my third playthrough of the game, right now, an Adept Paragon Femshep, my third character to have been imported from Mass Effect 2. I figured that having been through the game twice already I'd wind up surviving the final mission with my entire squad intact, however, I managed to fail Thane's loyalty mission. Was I disappointed? Sure, but I carried on anyway because ultimately it just meant that this Shepard's story would prove to be more unique than my previous characters'.
 
I think Thane said it best during that very mission. "We must carry the weight of our decisions"
 
It's great that the option is available to you to reload or try again if that's the way you want to approach the game, but personally I could never do it.

Mass Effect 2 is bullshit compared to the might of Dragon Age: Origins. It wasn't released in 2010, but still, the fact remains.

I agree, these less-than-perfect endings should be celebrated.  It'll probably lead to a more robust story overall ('remember that dangerous thing we did that was actually dangerous?') and it's not like you're going to end up with a gimped version of ME3.

I have one problem with the mass effect universe. 
 

I was lucky to play a "perfect" game on my first playthrough, losing no one.

"  

  

 The Game of the year lists are out. The nominees have been argued, and the winners have been chosen. For most, this winner is Mass Effect 2. Sequel to the well-received Mass Effect back in (if you can believe it) 2007. Mass Effect carries a very specific attribute that we’ve never had before. It’s not a game, it’s a world.

When I say its a world, I mean BioWare handed us a universe expanding countless planets and solar systems containing various races and history on a plate and gave us the knife. They didn’t choose just anybody for us to play, but the most influential figure in the universe to date, Commander Shepard. The key thing to realize is that Shepard is only making history when you’re holding the controller. This introduces a very unique trait that is given to the player. Choice.

Choice can be argued to exist in all games, but in Mass Effect it allows the world to adapt to your decisions. As it turns out essentially killing off a entire warlike race through genocide can really piss them off. In Mass Effect you deal with this dilemma directly, and it affects your world. At the end of Mass Effect 2 you have to make some very important decisions ultimately deciding who lives and who doesn’t. I lost three loyal squad mates on the final mission. Not because I didn’t like them (although I could care less if Jack’s rotting corpse lays in that elevator), but because I made the wrong choices. Yes, you can go search for a gigantic flow chart emphasizing the choices I should have made but the real question is: Does it matter? 

This could easily go into politics and religion in a blink of an eye, but I’m going to keep it based solely on Mass Effect, if I can.

What makes these choices wrong?

It’s something I’ve been trying to come up with ever since 3…erm…2 of my most trusted comrades were lost in the midst of my suicide mission. For many, these wrong choices can be cured by playing through the game again and following a specific guideline to keep everyone alive. If you look at the achievements it even rewards it. This could also be just a way to have replay value in a game without multi player, but the point remains. Why should I have to conclude this chapter in the most perfect way? I mean, it was supposed to be tragic. The whole game built up to it. Everyone kept talking about giving their lives if they needed to, and we want to have the same ending as everyone else? Doesn’t that effectively take my 50+ hours of gameplay and throw it to the Vorcha… or dogs? I know it’s a lot of questions, but I honesty can’t answer them. I’m just baffled why people want to keep games non-linear when the same people will complain that straight lines are so 2000 and late (oh, yeah, I just referenced that).

So, if I could cause you to do anything, I want you to think about it. Why not, stick with your decisions and save humanity without those friends of yours?—If your Shepard died in the end, well, then that just sucks.

I think BioWare would like the experience to be your own, not the same as the next guy behind you in line at midnight come the third iteration. 

Games are telling stories, and as I’ve said before they contain one extremely unique ability: to let you make the actions. If a game is created to follow that simple purpose don’t ignore it, and complete your own story arch. I know I’m going to—I just hope saving Earth doesn’t require a singing, alien scientist. 

Note: Playing through it all again is a blast and I recommend it, but you should keep that as a separate storyline.

"

I agree entirely. 
 
I used my ME1 Shepard during my first ME2 playthrough and, even though I tried my best, Tali ended up dying. This is the save that I will be taking to ME3 because that is my Shepard and my story and that's the way it will stay. 
 
I did however play a second playthrough with a lady Shepard and got a perfect ending so I will also be taking that save to ME3 after my first playthrough.

My first play through was perfect, and no one died. I have several other Sheps that I intend to play (they are all basically at the end, I've just been lazy) and I don't think I'll reload regardless of what happens. I will be so sad if anyone dies, though :(

"

My Shepard is actually better than anyones, even though I only played about 5 hours of the first game, then quit.  "

@Too Walrus:
 
A face only a mother could love, lol. 
 
As for the op, it's kinda moot, although play it as you want, and there in lies the beauty of the ME game structure.  It's meant for multiple playthroughs, from Paragon vs. Renegade, to all the ability role types, to all the achieves.  So take your 'imperfect' game in to ME3, and then later, take another save.  And for god's sake people(looking at you giantbomb staff who didn't), play through the game both as Paragon, and even moreso as Renegade.  Sooo fucking entertaining!