I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite thread on Obsidian

[Nepenthe]

You can call Legion out on this and it says something along the lines of '

they are just presented with the "loyalist" viewpoint and reevaluate their position

'*.

Which doesn't really make sense, but whatever.

 

*probably partially remembering wrong

 

IIRC,

it is suggested that the heretic viewpoint is at least partially a result of Reaper indoctrination affecting also non-organics. The code change reverses this effect.

 

If I'm not remembering right, then it's more just a question that choosing between the two alternatives you are presented with - the third being that you don't go there and leave the Heretics alone! - not summarily executing all of them for supporting the enemy is the alternative more in line with the paragon ethos.

 

[jaguars4ever]

Hopefully in ME3 we'll be able to see this 240 year old

Geth

freakin' Dyson Sphere WIP!

 

Haven't seen one of those babies since Freelancer! Oh Von Clausson - wherefore art thou?

[213374U]

Both options deny the heretics the possibility to self-determinate. The difference is that the Renegade choice is permanent. As with many moral decisions in this game there is not a distinction between black and white but between gray and grayer.

 

Killing is seldom considered paragon as it can't be reversed.

No, only the option to rewrite denies the heretics self-determination. The other results in their destruction following a freely chosen course of action.

 

And Paragon or not, I don't think Shepard has trouble killing, as long as it's not unnecessary. This choice is between killing a group of sentients, or relegating them to the role of mere machines to be debugged when need arises.

 

 

 

IIRC,

it is suggested that the heretic viewpoint is at least partially a result of Reaper indoctrination affecting also non-organics. The code change reverses this effect.

That, if true, would indeed solve everything. I'm not remembering anything of the sort, however.

 

 

If I'm not remembering right, then it's more just a question that choosing between the two alternatives you are presented with - the third being that you don't go there and leave the Heretics alone! - not summarily executing all of them for supporting the enemy is the alternative more in line with the paragon ethos.

Hahaha. I suppose the easy way out would be just leaving the whole thing well enough alone.

 

 

"Summary execution"... if you say so. Last I checked they were armed to the teeth, in possession of a WMD they intended to use, and in no mood to talk, but hey...

 

Edited February 26, 2010 by 213374U

[Chrisimo]

Both options deny the heretics the possibility to self-determinate. The difference is that the Renegade choice is permanent. As with many moral decisions in this game there is not a distinction between black and white but between gray and grayer.

 

Killing is seldom considered paragon as it can't be reversed.

 

 

No, only the option to rewrite denies the heretics self-determination. The other results in their destruction following a freely chosen course of action.

 

And Paragon or not, I don't think Shepard has trouble killing, as long as it's not unnecessary. This choice is between killing a group of sentients, or relegating them to the role of mere machines to be debugged when need arises.

 

 

 

Destruction means that they won't be able to self-determinate anymore. Rewriting them gives them the choice to self-determinate again in the future. They might even convince the others to join the Reapers. Destroying them denies them that possibility. Besides that it is irrational to argue from their point of view as we don't know their point of view. We only now the point of view of the other Geth and the heretics have decided that they don't want to self-determinate anymore. And they made that decision somewhere in the past. Maybe there is even a dispute going on within the heretics collective as to whether they should continue following the Reapers. We don't know that. Therefore their point of view should be outside of our reasoning.

 

And it's not the question if Shepard has problems with killing. Of course the renegade shepard does not have a problem with it. The paragon Shepard though has more of a problem with it.

 

Edited February 26, 2010 by Chrisimo

[213374U]

Destruction means that they won't be able to self-determinate anymore. Rewriting them gives them the choice to self-determinate again in the future. They might even convince the others to join the Reapers. Destroying them denies them that possibility. Besides that it is irrational to argue from their point of view as we don't know their point of view. We only now the point of view of the other Geth and the heretics have decided that they don't want to self-determinate anymore. Maybe there is even a dispute going on within the heretics collective as to whether they should continue following the Reapers. We don't know that. Therefore their point of view should be outside of our reasoning.

Destruction means they are destroyed, but their right to self-determination is respected. They are recognized as equals, even if they must be destroyed because of their unwillingness to correct their choices. This is why a war of self-defense is morally acceptable but colonialism which aims to create a human underclass "for their own protection" is not. The difference is that all Heretics share a criterion and act for all intents and purposes as an individual.

 

If you have Mordin in your party, he seems puzzled that Legion is willing to go against his own moral principles in taking away the Heretics' right to choose their own path. Legion's answer to this is that they have chosen a course of action that makes coexistence impossible, and that he has simply stated that the reprogramming option exists - but he doesn't endorse it (neither does he condemn it). The swine!

 

The Heretics' pov is irrelevant beyond the fact that they have chosen to reprogram the rest of the Geth, so we don't need to know what they think, as it's not their morality that's on the line, but the Geth's (embodied in Legion) and Shepard's. Two wrongs don't make a right and all.

 

 

 

And it's not the question if Shepard has problems with killing. Of course the renegade shepard does not have a problem with it. The paragon Shepard though has more of a problem with it.

Not really. As I said, Paragon Shep only has compunctions with killing when the victim is unarmed or otherwise helpless. This is not the case here, for the reasons I stated earlier.

[kirottu]

I just finished it as a mage and while combat was better almost everything else was worse(not by much) than in Mass Effect 1. Exploration was more tedious and total lack of vehicle sections was dissapointing. Story had no sense of urgency and felt like a filler material between 1 and 3.

 

It wasn

[Chrisimo]

Destruction means that they won't be able to self-determinate anymore. Rewriting them gives them the choice to self-determinate again in the future. They might even convince the others to join the Reapers. Destroying them denies them that possibility. Besides that it is irrational to argue from their point of view as we don't know their point of view. We only now the point of view of the other Geth and the heretics have decided that they don't want to self-determinate anymore. Maybe there is even a dispute going on within the heretics collective as to whether they should continue following the Reapers. We don't know that. Therefore their point of view should be outside of our reasoning.

 

 

Destruction means they are destroyed, but their right to self-determination is respected. They are recognized as equals, even if they must be destroyed because of their unwillingness to correct their choices. This is why a war of self-defense is morally acceptable but colonialism which aims to create a human underclass "for their own protection" is not. The difference is that all Heretics share a criterion and act for all intents and purposes as an individual.

 

 

Their right to self-determination is respected but their ability to self-determinate is removed. And we are not talking about a war, but extermination. Extinction is not morally acceptable if there is another way.

 

 

 

 

The Heretics' pov is irrelevant beyond the fact that they have chosen to reprogram the rest of the Geth, so we don't need to know what they think, as it's not their morality that's on the line, but the Geth's (embodied in Legion) and Shepard's. Two wrongs don't make a right and all.

 

 

 

And why would it be considered immoral for Shepard to rewrite the heretics and not immoral to destroy them?

 

 

 

And it's not the question if Shepard has problems with killing. Of course the renegade shepard does not have a problem with it. The paragon Shepard though has more of a problem with it.

Not really. As I said, Paragon Shep only has compunctions with killing when the victim is unarmed or otherwise helpless. This is not the case here, for the reasons I stated earlier.

 

 

Paragon Shepard has no problems killing in direct self-defense such as when the mobile heretic platforms attack him. Exterminating a whole subset of a species because they might harm him again would be extremely problematic for paragon Shepard.

 

[213374U]

I

[Volourn]

"I just finished it as a mage"

 

There is no mage.

 

 

"and while combat was better"

 

Combat is the one thing that is much worse along with character creation and devlopment.

 

 

" almost everything else was worse(not by much) than in Mass Effect 1."

 

Almost evetyhing else is as good if not better than ME1.

 

 

"Exploration was more tedious and total lack of vehicle sections was dissapointing."\

 

Exploration was alright; but I feel ya onn lack of vehicles. Mako gets such a abd rap. Tsk, tsk. really wish they'd just have improved it instead of removed it. Dumbtnutz.

 

 

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

 

 

" and felt like a filler material between 1 and 3"

 

Fun filler. I can live with that.

[jaguars4ever]

"I just finished it as a mage"

 

There is no mage.

Obviously, he means adept but given the homogenity of ME2 classes, it would be better to say fighter/mage.

 

"and while combat was better"

 

Combat is the one thing that is much worse along with character creation and devlopment.

While this is true, even ME2's dumbed down combat is way better than that in most of the other crappy rpgs these day. Bio's worst > the other guys best. Sad but true.

 

" almost everything else was worse(not by much) than in Mass Effect 1."

 

Almost evetyhing else is as good if not better than ME1.

Not quite. ME1 had better nightclubs with more quests, minigames, plus the mako, & Faunts M4 Part II. But apart from that everything else about ME2 > ME1.

 

"Exploration was more tedious and total lack of vehicle sections was dissapointing."\

 

Exploration was alright; but I feel ya onn lack of vehicles. Mako gets such a abd rap. Tsk, tsk. really wish they'd just have improved it instead of removed it. Dumbtnutz.

This is what I don't get. Mako wasn't crap - it was merely lacking. Why Bio didn't simply improve it beggers belief. Here's to hoping the Hammerhead will be as fun.

 

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

You're kidding me right? ME2 was all about urgency. And not only especially near the end. From building a team to stop the mass abductions, to chasing the of Horizon, to snatch and grabbing the IFF. That's pretty damn urgent. And as for the suicide mission, well, that's one of the most awesome and exigent rpgs quests of all time.

 

" and felt like a filler material between 1 and 3"

 

Fun filler. I can live with that.

While ME2 was definitely fun, I would hardly call it filler. With the exception of the dumbed down combat (and some minor minutia mentioned above) it's superior to ME1 (a fantastic game) and therefore worthy of standing on its own merit.

[mr insomniac]

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

You're kidding me right? ME2 was all about urgency. And not only especially near the end. From building a team to stop the mass abductions, to chasing the of Horizon, to snatch and grabbing the IFF. That's pretty damn urgent. And as for the suicide mission, well, that's one of the most awesome and exigent rpgs quests of all time.

The only time the sense of urgency is ruined is when you can put off retrieving the IFF for as long as you want, in order to finish up the loyalty missions and basically roam around the galaxy at your leisure. ME was no different, with being able to put off going to Ilos as long as you wanted as well. What's funny about that is Saren still only ended up there just ahead of you.

[jaguars4ever]

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

You're kidding me right? ME2 was all about urgency. And not only especially near the end. From building a team to stop the mass abductions, to chasing the of Horizon, to snatch and grabbing the IFF. That's pretty damn urgent. And as for the suicide mission, well, that's one of the most awesome and exigent rpgs quests of all time.

The only time the sense of urgency is ruined is when you can put off retrieving the IFF for as long as you want, in order to finish up the loyalty missions and basically roam around the galaxy at your leisure. ME was no different, with being able to put off going to Ilos as long as you wanted as well. What's funny about that is Saren still only ended up there just ahead of you.

Yes, but urgency should not be confused with linearity. Being able to "put off going to X as long as you wanted" until mission/quest Y is a crucial component in open-ended rpgs. Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it too. So many times players bitch about the game being more straightforward than Mr. Rogers wardrobe, and they yearn for open-ended freedom as George Costanza yearns for Marisa Tomei. Yet, when you give them that freedom they bitch about the lack of urgency. The compromise is, of course, to go the FO1 route and impose a penalty to the dilly-dallying of your exploration. Take too long to send water back to the vault? Your vault thirsts to death. Take too long to deal with the mutant threat? Villages get razed. ME2 incorporated the failure system to an extent, and for that they should get credit. If you took too long to rescue the crew, they got liquefied. Seems like a fair consequence to a fair choice to me.

Edited February 27, 2010 by jaguars4ever

[mr insomniac]

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

You're kidding me right? ME2 was all about urgency. And not only especially near the end. From building a team to stop the mass abductions, to chasing the of Horizon, to snatch and grabbing the IFF. That's pretty damn urgent. And as for the suicide mission, well, that's one of the most awesome and exigent rpgs quests of all time.

The only time the sense of urgency is ruined is when you can put off retrieving the IFF for as long as you want, in order to finish up the loyalty missions and basically roam around the galaxy at your leisure. ME was no different, with being able to put off going to Ilos as long as you wanted as well. What's funny about that is Saren still only ended up there just ahead of you.

Yes, but urgency should not be confused with linearity. Being able to "put off going to X as long as you wanted" until mission/quest Y is a crucial component in open-ended rpgs. Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it too. So many times players bitch about the game being more straightforward than Mr. Rogers wardrobe, and they yearn for open-ended freedom as George Costanza yearns for Marisa Tomei. Yet, when you give them that freedom they bitch about the lack of urgency. The compromise is or course to go the FO1 route and impose a penalty to the dilly-dallying of your exploration. Take too long to send water back to the vault? Your vault thirsts to death. Take too long to deal with the mutant threat? Villages get razed. ME2 incorporated the failure system to an extent, and for that they should get credit. If you took too long to rescue the crew, they got liquefied. Seems like a fair consequence to a fair choice to me.

I agree with this. If Bio is gonna give you the chance to save your squad during the suicide mission, they have to give you the chance to meet all the requirements they put in place -- loyalty missions, upgrades, etc. As you pointed out in your previous post, the sense of urgency is there through building the team, going to Horizon, during the suicide mission, and even after you retrieve the IFF. It just seemed a bit jarring that you could go back and forth across the galaxy as often as you liked. Maybe they could have placed another "you must go here now" quest or two in the middle of that.

[Nepenthe]

I agree with this. If Bio is gonna give you the chance to save your squad during the suicide mission, they have to give you the chance to meet all the requirements they put in place -- loyalty missions, upgrades, etc. As you pointed out in your previous post, the sense of urgency is there through building the team, going to Horizon, during the suicide mission, and even after you retrieve the IFF. It just seemed a bit jarring that you could go back and forth across the galaxy as often as you liked. Maybe they could have placed another "you must go here now" quest or two in the middle of that.

 

I dunno, some people were already now complaining how this is Bio's most linear game since Jade Empire (which I couldn't disagree more with, btw.). I think they balanced the free-roam/forced parts pretty well (even if

Horizon and the Reaper ship are both sadistically difficult on insanity when compared to the rest and you can really paint yourself into a corner if you don't know this

).

 

And I still disagree with ME2's combat being "dumbed down". You might build an argument that the gear system was (gear is not combat), you might argue that it is, in some areas, rather simple (and I might agree with you), but "dumbing" would involve it being dumber than ME1 - something that is beyond the realm of possibility.

[jaguars4ever]

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

You're kidding me right? ME2 was all about urgency. And not only especially near the end. From building a team to stop the mass abductions, to chasing the of Horizon, to snatch and grabbing the IFF. That's pretty damn urgent. And as for the suicide mission, well, that's one of the most awesome and exigent rpgs quests of all time.

The only time the sense of urgency is ruined is when you can put off retrieving the IFF for as long as you want, in order to finish up the loyalty missions and basically roam around the galaxy at your leisure. ME was no different, with being able to put off going to Ilos as long as you wanted as well. What's funny about that is Saren still only ended up there just ahead of you.

Yes, but urgency should not be confused with linearity. Being able to "put off going to X as long as you wanted" until mission/quest Y is a crucial component in open-ended rpgs. Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it too. So many times players bitch about the game being more straightforward than Mr. Rogers wardrobe, and they yearn for open-ended freedom as George Costanza yearns for Marisa Tomei. Yet, when you give them that freedom they bitch about the lack of urgency. The compromise is or course to go the FO1 route and impose a penalty to the dilly-dallying of your exploration. Take too long to send water back to the vault? Your vault thirsts to death. Take too long to deal with the mutant threat? Villages get razed. ME2 incorporated the failure system to an extent, and for that they should get credit. If you took too long to rescue the crew, they got liquefied. Seems like a fair consequence to a fair choice to me.

I agree with this. If Bio is gonna give you the chance to save your squad during the suicide mission, they have to give you the chance to meet all the requirements they put in place -- loyalty missions, upgrades, etc. As you pointed out in your previous post, the sense of urgency is there through building the team, going to Horizon, during the suicide mission, and even after you retrieve the IFF. It just seemed a bit jarring that you could go back and forth across the galaxy as often as you liked. Maybe they could have placed another "you must go here now" quest or two in the middle of that.

That's definitely right on the money my sleepless friend. But why stop there? Bio should have (read: should in ME3) have used the Gromnir approach of paying-the-price/earning-the-reward-of-sacrifice during the suicide mission. That is, you shouldn't have been able to procure a perfect result/outcome with minimal causalities. In other words, say you want to snatch some valuable tech that would benefit the entire galaxy in the fight against the reapers. This should have been possible...but only if you're willing to sacrifice Tali/Legion to go fetch it. Or say you can safely get the crew back to the ship...only if someone is willing to bite the dust for the team. Or better yet (as Grom said) how about forcing a Kaiden/Ashely-esque choice between saving your own ass vs saving yours henchies. I think if that was the case, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more dead Sheps floating around in space. As it stands, there really isn't any incentive to have your henchies die, let alone yourself. It's almost Nintendo-hard to kill off your own Shep during the suicide mission. You really have to work for it. So naturally, no one does, especially when there's no incentive to do so.

Edited February 27, 2010 by jaguars4ever

[Orogun01]

That's definitely right on the money my sleepless friend. But why stop there? Bio should have (read: should in ME3) have used the Gromnir approach of paying-the-price/earning-the-reward-of-sacrifice during the suicide mission. That is, you shouldn't have been able to procure a perfect result/outcome with minimal causalities. In other words, say you want to snatch some valuable tech that would benefits the entire galaxy in the fight against the reapers. This should have been possible...but only if you're willing to sacrifice Tali/Legion to go fetch it. Or say you can safely get the crew back to the ship...only if someone is willing to bite the dust for the team. Or better yet (as Grom said) how about forcing a Kaiden/Ashely-esque choice between saving your own ass vs saving yours henchies. I think if that was the case, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more dead Sheps floating around in space. As it stands, there really isn't any incentive to have your henchies die, let alone yourself. It's almost Nintendo-hard to kill off your own Shep during the suicide mission. You really have to work for it. So naturally, no one does, especially when there's no incentive to do so.

There is only one reason as to why the given choices weren't as definitive and hard as advertised; the gamer's sense of complacency. Talking straight; games are an ego stroking apparatus, the gamers is always experiencing things from a secure view because in the in the end he will win (that's what he payed for). So killing everyone on the team or making the final mission incredibly hard would have been off-putting to a lot of gamers. Or is at least a risk that the devs are not willing to take.

Given the advertisement and the whole buildup to the game I was expecting something more severe, but I guess that there are no experimental games is the same that could explain this: No major developer want's to risk alienating their audience.

At the same time I think that there was no good writing around the companions deaths, it felt generic and forced. It simply didn't belong there and the game didn't even acknowledge the losses properly. There was no reaction; even if the deceased was close to Shepard, only a coffin at the end.

[mr insomniac]

"Story had no sense of urgency"

 

I dunno. It had some urgency at trimes espicially near the end.

You're kidding me right? ME2 was all about urgency. And not only especially near the end. From building a team to stop the mass abductions, to chasing the of Horizon, to snatch and grabbing the IFF. That's pretty damn urgent. And as for the suicide mission, well, that's one of the most awesome and exigent rpgs quests of all time.

The only time the sense of urgency is ruined is when you can put off retrieving the IFF for as long as you want, in order to finish up the loyalty missions and basically roam around the galaxy at your leisure. ME was no different, with being able to put off going to Ilos as long as you wanted as well. What's funny about that is Saren still only ended up there just ahead of you.

Yes, but urgency should not be confused with linearity. Being able to "put off going to X as long as you wanted" until mission/quest Y is a crucial component in open-ended rpgs. Otherwise you're having your cake and eating it too. So many times players bitch about the game being more straightforward than Mr. Rogers wardrobe, and they yearn for open-ended freedom as George Costanza yearns for Marisa Tomei. Yet, when you give them that freedom they bitch about the lack of urgency. The compromise is or course to go the FO1 route and impose a penalty to the dilly-dallying of your exploration. Take too long to send water back to the vault? Your vault thirsts to death. Take too long to deal with the mutant threat? Villages get razed. ME2 incorporated the failure system to an extent, and for that they should get credit. If you took too long to rescue the crew, they got liquefied. Seems like a fair consequence to a fair choice to me.

I agree with this. If Bio is gonna give you the chance to save your squad during the suicide mission, they have to give you the chance to meet all the requirements they put in place -- loyalty missions, upgrades, etc. As you pointed out in your previous post, the sense of urgency is there through building the team, going to Horizon, during the suicide mission, and even after you retrieve the IFF. It just seemed a bit jarring that you could go back and forth across the galaxy as often as you liked. Maybe they could have placed another "you must go here now" quest or two in the middle of that.

That's definitely right on the money my sleepless friend. But why stop there? Bio should have (read: should in ME3) have used the Gromnir approach of paying-the-price/earning-the-reward-of-sacrifice during the suicide mission. That is, you shouldn't have been able to procure a perfect result/outcome with minimal causalities. In other words, say you want to snatch some valuable tech that would benefit the entire galaxy in the fight against the reapers. This should have been possible...but only if you're willing to sacrifice Tali/Legion to go fetch it. Or say you can safely get the crew back to the ship...only if someone is willing to bite the dust for the team. Or better yet (as Grom said) how about forcing a Kaiden/Ashely-esque choice between saving your own ass vs saving yours henchies. I think if that was the case, we'd be seeing a hell of a lot more dead Sheps floating around in space. As it stands, there really isn't any incentive to have your henchies die, let alone yourself. It's almost Nintendo-hard to kill off your own Shep during the suicide mission. You really have to work for it. So naturally, no one does, especially when there's no incentive to do so.

Yeah that's an even better idea. I confess I didnt read Gromnir's posts where he mentioned sacrifice/reward, but a big deal is made throughout the game about how tough the final mission is gonna be. At some point Shep or one of the squad -- maybe Garrus? -- says something to the effect of, "we're going to lose some people, there's no way around that."

 

That should happen no matter how well prepared you are. First time I played ME and I got to the consequences of the Virmire choice, I felt a little bit of 'well dammit!' when it was all done. In ME2, as long as you do everything you can to prepare, and pay attention to what everyone's strengths are, you're not going to get a 'well dammit!' moment. And that's the bad thing about the 'retrieve the IFF' intermission -- you have the chance to prepare.

 

Thane makes no secret of the fact that he's dying. I think it would have been cool if he'd sacrificed himself at some point during the final mission, maybe to take a bullet for Shep, or hold off a group of collectors a la Dak'kon being overwhelmed by shadows in the Fortress of Regrets. Samara is another one ripe for a noble sacrifice. I gotta say that if it comes down to Tali vs Legion, as much as I like Legion and what is revelaed about the Geth through him... well, Tali is not going anywhere, heh.

[213374U]

There's no making everyone happy, ever. I'm thinking that, regarding the casualties thing, both sides have merit. A so-called "suicide mission" makes no sense if in the end, everyone gets to go home, and indeed, that makes the whole journey feel a bit cheap. But then again, whoever said it was suicide didn't really know what the mission was going to be about.

 

And then there's the C&C thing. If, despite your best efforts, you fail to save everyone, then the result isn't much different from what you would get if you half-assed your duties as a leader - thus killing the C&C component that gets some folks so hot and bothered. Personally, I think the way they did it is the best way: let the player choose. It's not difficult to game the system into killing the one NPC you want to die (not so) heroically, but the possibility to get everyone home alive is still there. Sure, it involves a fair bit of metagaming, but no system is perfect.

 

The bottom line is that most people like their stories to end with the big goddamned hero riding into the sunset, so it stands to reason that Bio would appeal to that. But for those that like a bit more drama (or who simply hate being stuck with a NPC they hate), a path also exists. Just because you can save everyone, it doesn't mean you HAVE to.

 

Oh, wait. There's that achievement thing...

[Volourn]

"some people"

 

L0L Some people. And, 'some' people think POR2 is awesome game. What does that even mean?

 

 

"And I still disagree with ME2's combat being "dumbed down"."

 

The combat itself is dumbed down. Combat boils down to literally hide n seek, medigel/healing was changed/removed,biotic powers are pathetic and nowhere near as useful (or fun), the lack of a type of combat (run and gun and vehcile combat: mako 4 THA W!), less talents, the facts that ammo is now a talent ability, the fact that skill with weapons is not player choice but based solely on class, enemiesm never miss, etc., etc.

 

Yup, ME2 combat is dumbed down in com parison to ME1,.

 

But, like my fellow ME fan says, it's still better than most crap.

[Purkake]

I dare anyone here to find a single person who thought that POR2 was "good".

 

 

"Awesome" would probably not even be worth the effort

 

[Volourn]

Go to the Codex. Or you should have been on the POR2 forum when it first came out. Believe me, on the internet, no matter the subject, you will always find at least someone who takes an extreme stance one way or the other on anythinf. And, I'm not talking about those who do stuff like for lols; but actually mean it.

[Purkake]

Go to the Codex.

Why would you condemn anyone to such a terrible fate?

 

The internet is pretty weird, though, just look at you and the phrase "lol".

[Volourn]

So true. R00fles!

[I want teh kotor 3]

In regards to the suicide mission thing:

 

I liked it. Why? Because it let me dispose of Tali. So now, no Carth, no Tali.

[Guest The Architect]

Haha guess your Shepard didn't like what he saw behind the mask.