Share this article:
 Digg.com Facebook Google Bookmarks N4G Gamerblips del.icio.us Reddit Slashdot.org StumbleUpon Dang, that looks and sounds fantastic. Please don't rape the ME2 PC version with DRM this time, EA/BioWare. Cool, looks pretty sweet. Can't wait. :D They should make two different covers available or something, one with a male Shepard and one with a female. Maybe like one on the front, another on the back.
Just saying, because I've completed two playthroughs of ME1 and I'm currently on my third, all of which have been played as a female character.
Looks nice though and if you didn't guess from how much I've played the original, I'm definately looking forward to this game ;) Thanks for the warning on the spoilerific video.. Seeing as you can customise the way your Sheppard looks, Bioware's male Sheppard is a strange one for me. Having mainly created female Sheppards (partly because the woman's voice acting is far, far better than the male actor!) I actually think this is one game that could justify not having the lead character on the box artwork. Besides they have such interesting designs for some of the aliens (better than some movies, and much better than most games) I think they could have taking a slightly different approach.
I've actually prepared a small team of Sheppards for the sequel... all classes covered, with variations in the key story options but it's occurred to me that it was an utterly pointless task!
Bioware have already stated you'll be able to redo your Sheppard's face; you're going to lose all the stats; lose all weapons and money; in fact the only thing you'll retain apart from the original storyline options will be your name, class and sex (and they'll probably allow you to change those too!!!).
Bascially they've said, "In the interest of appealing to newcomers, players of the original with gain no benefit whatsoever, apart from you'll know some history about the Mass Effect universe (or should that be galaxy!), which we're going to repeat anyway for people new to the series!"
The video seems to indicate that you lose the ship, and I'm assuming all the crew except Liara, and perhaps that annoying pilot, so you start at exactly the same point as you did in the original more or less... as nothing, with nothing! I guess it's one way to ensure newcomers aren't disadvantaged, but it sort does a 'Star Wars prequel' with regards the original game's Sheppard.
I'm trying to work out if there's actually any advantage in having played the original. I have one Sheppard, for example, that's basically been rude or violent throughout the game... and I doubt Mass Effect 2 will play out any different with that Sheppard than it will for a nice kind Sheppard.
Come to think of it, any character who's fate lies in your hands can't possible be of any importance in the sequel. Or if they are, then the game would need a replacement character in case you had allowed them to die and they were important to the continuing story. The replacement would say and do pretty much the exact same thing, in order to continue and move that plot/storyline along.
I'm still excited about Mass Effect 2, but the reality of how the sequel will be handled is starting to dawn on me now. You've got a very good point there.
ME1 was and still is an amazing game and it offered so many choices that allowed the player to shape both their character and the way the story played out.
However, by implementing that system, Bioware made it impossible to create a sequel that can accurately reflect the huge range of different experiences of the players. You ultimately had control over whether your character was good or bad, how the basic storyline played out and even which characters lived or died. All that allowed for god knows how many variations and theres no way to show those in a sequel without completely wiping the slate clean and making those original choices mean nothing.
Unfortunately you either have to accept starting with a blank slate or you have to put up with not having the sequel until technology eventually allows the original experiences to affect how the sequel plays out, if that ever becomes a possibility. I guess you missed the interview where Bioware stated; Every decision (big or small) will affect the sequel. Personally I think the cover is terrible. It looks like a bad sci-fi novel... At least the first one had a demure elegence about it. But who really gives a toss? They could give it to me in a brownm paper bag for all it actually matters... Personally I think the cover is terrible. It looks like a bad sci-fi novel... At least the first one had a demure elegence about it. But who really gives a toss? They could give it to me in a brownm paper bag for all it actually matters...[/quote
I also think it's a bit rubbish. Hopefully they'll release a collectors edition with different artwork. :) Oh boy, you couldn't be MORE wrong! :P
Check out virtually ANY proper Mass Effect 2 preview and you will see just how much effort has gone into taking into account your decisions on EVERY level, from being good/bad to how you let the endgame play out, to who was alive by then and your romances, but also small events like your interaction with the fan guy, cerberus, the shadow broker... etc etc.
The games been in development for over two years, and isn't due out until early next year, and it's not like they spent that time building up a wwhole new game engine!
This is supposed to build on how they extended Baldurs Gate II into Throne of Bhaal ten fold, and some decisions in the first game will not have repercussions until the THIRD game...
The "spoilers" here are not actually "spoilers" per se. From what Bioware have been saying in all of their previews, you have a mission to do and you have to plan every minute detail. Anyone can die permanently (including your custom Shepherd) if you don't plan properly. The destruction you can see in the preview is one of many possible permutations, and they have gone on record as saying that is not from the end of the game.
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that you get to see how things would pan out if you did NO planning early on in the game, and then your main mission is to go about doing everything in your power to prevent things happening that way. Not keen on the box art (but with any luck, it's just the US version). Good thing what's inside the box will probably be one of the most glorious things ever committed to disk. I cannot wait. Exactly. Some games you just know will be great long before they come out, this is one of these games. It'll be Mass Effect 1 with all the minor faults eradicated and the planetary exploration parts will be much more fleshed out, which sounds pretty close to perfection to me. Can't wait. Black Mantis,
I didn't miss that article. But what a developer says and what actually happens in a game can be two different things. I'm not suggesting for a second that the statement 'every little Mass Effect decision has an effect' is untrue... but the question is, what kind of effect, and how intricate to the story are those changes. I suspect very little indeed.
The problem is, as I said in my previous post, that the game has to work for newcomers and experienced alike. The game only has one main story. Sure there may be minor alternatives, even the killing of Sheppard is a minor alternative seeing as it'll come at the end of the game, which perfectly allows a whole new Sheppard (sibling, cousin, brother, sister) to step right in and start Mass Effect 3 with a brand new character with no money, stats, possessions!
I guess what I was trying to explain was that it occurred to me just what an illusion the whole 'choosing the fate of characters' really is. And how impossible it would be to have characters who's fate is in your hands actually impact on the sequel. Before Bioware's statements I was excited by the prospect that decisions I took in the original would affect the sequel.
However, what started me thinking about this, and ultimately what brought home the reality that the game can't possible be as open and varied as I always imagined is Bioware explaining that you lose all your stats, all your weapons and money, and worst still can actually go back and remake the face of your Sheppard! Added to that, Bioware have already stated that there are new special abilities, and completely new types of weapons to specialise in. I geniunely believed Mass Effect's basic game design was thought out well enough that it was set and fixed for the whole series. Adding and changes abilities or weapon specialisations obviously means you risk alienating players who bring in a Mass Effect 1 character and would encourage everyone to start a fresh new Sheppard, practically negating the clever and to an extent original idea that your RPG character actually transferred to a new game. Maybe the third game will completely change all the character classes. It's possible! And it would only be an extension of what is happening in Mass Effect 2.
In movie terms, what Bioware have done, is taken Han Solo from Star Wars, replaced him with another actor in Empire Strikes back, while also killing off Chewbacca, taking away his Millennium Falcon and swopping his blaster for a lightsabre! While I accept that character development retains interest in a character while freshening up a story, there are only so many changes you can make to a character before it's effectively a completely new one, and you might as well just change his name, and start afresh. In Bond terms it feels like Mass Effect 2 and 3, will be like seeing a new actor, and character direction for three Bond movies in a row. I know this actually happened with Sean Connery, George Lazenby and then Roger Moore, but with Sheppard and Mass Efffect, we're closer to the character, and have developed him/her, and now we're told that all that's gone doesn't matter. It's what happens in all game sequels, but I was under the impression Mass Effect was more RPG and character development than normal games. It' seems it's not the sequel that I and I think many had imagined. It's just a little disappointing that as players of the original, there's really little pay-off because of the problems it would cause for newcomers to the sequel. While we may not have invested as much into our Sheppard's as say people who play World of Warcraft, you can only imagine the outcry if suddenly everyone's character went back to level 1, with no equipment, money etc. Isn't character building and customisation what makes RPGs unique and popular?
That's not to say I haven't absolutely loved the original, and will no doubt love the sequels. But clearly I might as well start new Sheppards for Mass Effect 2 as there's little point in bringing over my characters from the original, except as reference to how many times I chose to be good or bad. Why the hell do you keep on typing essays?! :lol:
In answer to the bridge between ME 2 & ME 3:
http://kotaku.com/5303247/there-will-be-no-new-game-plus-in-mass-effect-2
Abilities being reset:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/93511-Starting-Over-With-Commander-Shepard
All I'm concerned about is selecting a save from the first game and having my decisions intact. That is confirmed, along with my Shepard looking the same. 8) Black Mantis, it's simple... we love the game, and we're discussing it. It's interesting and fascinating to us! Feel free to not read them though!
Moribundman,
I can't answer for djjimmy, but as he was replying and agreeing with a comment I made, I'd like to reply to your message.
First off, I need to say, I do love Mass Effect, and accept and will embrace whatever Bioware give us as a sequel but there are two issues which I believe all of us are either surprised about or slightly disappointed with, based on Bioware's comments and the whole 'continuing a story that is affected by the previous game'.
As I'd just previously posted the issue for players of the first game are because the sequel has to work for newcomers. And this in my opinion wasn't worked out as strategically as it could have been! (I know how that sounds, and I'll explain...) The two main issues are 1. the character of Sheppard, and 2. the adventure running through three games.
The Sheppard character:
As outrageous as it seems, there will be gamers who didn't play the first game, as much as there will be gamers who play the third having not played the first or second. This clearly creates challenging issues and strategies for the developer. Do they 1. do as all normal games do with sequels, and have you start at the begining, or 2. do as RPGs are designed to do and have you continue the development of your character. Disappointingly they've chosen the former.
Bioware have made the decision to take him/her back to square one because of a decision (I think a mistake) from the first game. It seems by allowing multiple play-throughs they had already deemed it necessary to take Sheppard back to square one. The achievement of reaching level 60, which is impossible in only one run through the game, made it necessary for multiple play-throughs. Having a dislike for achievements, this is particularly annoying to me! So by allowing players to create the ultimate Sheppard it's knock-on effect was that Mass Effect 2 would be too easy for multiple play-through Sheppards or if the difficulty were increased to challenge level 60 Sheppard's would be impossible for newcomers, and that would also be a mistake and could ultimately impact sales. Or would require Mass Effect 2 to allow multiple play-throughs, creating the same problem with Mass Effect 3. An alternative would be to allow Sheppard to reach say, level 120, in Mass Efffect 2 and again that would create an even bigger mountain to climb for newcomers. Not many gamers would want to feel they have to play through the game 3 times with the same character to stand a chance on the toughest difficulties. Again, that would be a poor decision that could ultimately annoy people, or at worst, put people off.
An alternative, of course, could be to increase the level to 120 in Mass Effect 2, and give newcomers all the skill points for a level 60 character that they spend at the begining of the game, and have as powerful a Sheppard as players of the original. Again, the issue here is, some peoples Sheppard may have only played through the game once, and only be level 32 or 33. So in my opinion Bioware made a massive error in allowing multiple play-throughs of Mass Effect 1, and the result is, we now all have to start off with the character as a level 1. And the proof that it was a mistake, Bioware have already stated that you cannot play through Mass Effect 2 with the same Sheppard over and over, because, I believe, they actually want us to be able to take Sheppard through to Mass Effect 3... saying that, with the prospect of allowing Sheppard to die in the sequel, perhaps in the third installment we'll start with a level 1 character again. Which really isn't making full use of the RPG side to your character.
The continuing adventures:
While Bioware insist that decisions made in the original game affect the sequel, it's impossible for those decisions to have much of an impact for two reasons. 1. again, newcomers won't have made the choices we would have made to the fate of Mass Effect 1 characters, and 2. the basic story must run along a very similar path or the alternatives would effectively create many versions of Mass Effect 2 and 3.
For example, let's take our favourite blue alien, Liara. She's obviously in Mass Effect 2, as we've seen her in videos, and I believe Bioware have said as much. She's a great character and I hope stays with us throughout the whole series. But imagine a player dislikes her. This player refuses to be nice to her, and is given an option in Mass Effect 2, for example, to let her die. Mass Effect 3 has only two options, with regards her; 1. the game plays out with her in tow, or 2. she's not in the game at all. This surely means, there couldn't be a storyline or major plot driven by her attendance.
For example, let's imagine she could become the leader of the Asari, or have Sheppard's baby in the third game. As she might not be alive, these story options would have to be extremely minor and have no impact on the underlining whole Mass Effect story. Or do Bioware create such a game with the third, there are so many alternatives, that in one variation she's the leader of Asari, in another she's dead and a whole new character is leader, or she has Sheppards baby and a storyline develops around that relationship, or she's dead and said relationship, offspring are completely ignored, or by having the baby can't become leader of the Asari, or another character could have the baby, or become the Asari leader!!
I think there are too many options that could have such an impact, and the ripple effect of such major plotlines is either far too expensive to allow for, or far too complex and big for Mass Effect. I don't disagree that these storylines could still actually happen, but they would end up being matter-of-fact sideline situations and would ultimately require a stand-in character to carry out these situations, effectively making the decision to allow Liara to live or die a rather minor issue in terms of the overall story. I'd love to see major changes in decisions I make, as we all romantically assume with happen, but I think we're fooling ourselves that any decision we make really makes any difference to the story. I could be wrong, but imagine how many full games could be made with all the alternative storylines available based on our decisions really making an impact! The choices we made in Mass Effect 1 are ultimately a case of smoke and mirrors and our decisions have little impact on the sequels!
And it's why I think at each new game will have few characters from the previous appear in the sequels, or if they do, they're utterly unimportant to the overall story, and just a moment of "oh, look, there's Wrex, hi Wrex, oh you off then.. bye!".
To use a Star Wars analogy; if Mass Effect were the first Star Wars movie, Han Solo will always shoot the tie-fighters allowing Skywalker to blow up the Death Star... and Bioware, like George Lucas, always knew what they wanted to do their sequels. Bioware know where the Mass Effect story is going, and I'm under no illusion any decisions I make in the game will effect the outcome... we're all on a path to same ending ultimately, and the only difference is whether Liara has your baby, or a character we've not met yet! The main story decisions will obviously be the biggest ones, and will adhere to Bioware's plans for the trilogy. I don't think a lot of people expected much more to be honest.
What a lot of people hoped for is that every decision that could shape their own unique play-through, comes to fruition. Whether you killed the Rachni or let them live, the choice with Wrex or the Council, basically giving gamers a choice to shape a world within the confines of a story already written.
Lets face it, that's very commendable in the world of video-games, without factoring in books and movies. jensonjet, you must be a massive mass effect fan. "The main story decisions will obviously be the biggest ones, and will adhere to Bioware's plans for the trilogy. I don't think a lot of people expected much more to be honest."
I did. Can't understand why they gave you that final choice at the end of the first game if they decided they would ignore those of us who made the "wrong" choice.
'They' should have died....lol. :twisted: I-am-from-space... I am! Well I'm a massive fan of all the games I like. I'm pretty fussy and care for so few, but when I do, I'm pretty passionate about them. Added to the fact I'm a designer and artist, oh, and opinionated – so when it comes to games I care about I usually have something to say. Mass Effect is a special game in that it's attempting to be more ambitious than most, although I think because it's one of the first games to really attempt a proper sequel, it's made mistakes and in future, games will improve a little because of this. Oh, and added to that, this is the only third person I've ever had an interest in. Normally I can't be bothered with their poor combat mechanics, easy RPG tatics, bad voice acting, etc. Mass Effect is a cut above the rest in my eyes. If only it allowed you play in first person... I'll save that discussion for another forum! That doesn't surprise me at all. From the get-go I was puzzled as to how BioWare was going to pull off a sequel where a character from the previous game could be directly ported unless they enacted a "reset" effect (no pun intended). They haven't done anything unusual in this regard; resets have existed for decades in games with sequels that use the same characters. The Baldur's Gate series was no exception either.
No, this doesn't come as a surprise at all; what would have surprised me would be if BioWare had allowed you to import a character with all the experience, skills, gear, weapons, credits, etc. Short of some sort of organic, self-adjusting difficulty curve in "ME2" there would be little challenge. While I do like the thought of continuing with a highly developed character you have grown attached to, including all of his/her gear, this decision does make sense to me. Well, good for those who share your outlook. If the Paragon/Renegade counter is not reset then I suppose that is something, however personally I'd be almost infinitely more interested in transferring 55+ levels of experience, gear and skills. Take that away and it might as well be a fresh start, as Jenson writes. That approach doesn't surprise me and it's hardly a new one, but it does, IMO, fall short of the perception it seems many gamers got from BioWare's words.
Did BioWare lie? I do not think so, however, they aren't stupid and I strongly suspect they were aware that the way they phrased things could help generate extra interest in their game because it seemed to some of their fans that they could import their previous characters hook, line and sinker which isn't the case by the look of things. So, not an outright lie but potentially misleading. *shrugs* The KFD Case, there is a very simple way that a character could be transferred with all the stats, weapons, money, etc without causing any problems, and still work perfectly for newcomers. But that decision would need to have been taken early in development.
What was needed is the developer to work out the exact amount of stat points possible after completing the trilogy, and then only allow each game to give you one third. And with each game the maximum points available on any one stat would be one third the total available after completing the trilogy. By restricting you to just a third on the first game, two thirds on the second, the player can't max out any one stat ultimately making the character too powerful.
And for newcomers to the sequel, they'd have the same amount of points to spend on their characters stats as they would have accumulated had they played through the first game. The only disadvantage for newcomers would be a lack of history with the character, a lack of knowledge of the first game (of which could summarised early in the sequel) and less money and no weapons. I say less money, as they would be given an amount of credits to purchase some equipment to get started with. So instead of the 3 or 4 points to spend on stats that we currently have in Mass Effect, you'd have say 50 to spend as a newcomer to the sequel. While it sounds too easy, they'd be necessary as the game would be designed for characters who were skillful. It's always odd to me that RPG games start you off as a completely unskilled, untrained, pennyless tramp! The result being, with Mass Effect, for example you end up shooting floating plants and enemies that would actually die if you stroked them with a flower!!! Newcomers to the sequel wouldn't have to put with up such useless combat and would get straight into proper fights, being partly trained, or half skilled in some abilities and weapons. How come developers don't think this would work??
But of course, there would need to be a more sensible route taken with regards the collection of weapons with an RPG trilogy. I can see why it's done, but currently our characters can hold something like 150 items! 150 weapons and upgrades would require a rather massive trolley to carry them in. So what would be needed is a restriction on how many weapons you could carry. I can't see what's wrong with limiting a player to just a handful of weapons, so you'd carefully choose throughout the game which you left, and which you'd take. Admittedly a player could still make multiple returns to collect loot, but ultimately it would only be good for selling on for credits. And the way round this is that second-hand weapons are worth very little, and it's credits earned during the game that becomes your biggest income.
There... I've just explained how a proper RPG could run through multiple sequels. So why has it never been done, and why haven't Bioware managed such a system either? All it takes is careful planning, and a conviction to stick with rules and guidelines set out in the original game. There can be no changes to character classes, skills or features or else you break to continuity. This is what's happening with ME2 with the addition of new biotic skills and weapon classes. Maybe when they change the rules for ME3 they'll add stats required to drive or shoot in the Rover, or pilot flying vehicles. Actually you could add new stat skills to the system I explained above, by just automatically giving that stat a number of points to get it started. Not ideal, but it allows for minor additions.
Well the good news has to be, as Bioware won't have managed a true progression of an RPG character through to a sequel in Mass Effect, it's only a matter of time before someone does. Bioware have planted the seeds, it'll be interesting to see if they can take it to the next stage with a new franchise, or it'll be someone else who manages it! If you chose to let them die, that's exactly how it'll be in the second game if you load from a save. Bioware didn't lie, but admitted they ballsed up in letting gamers level up to level 60. Now they've realised their mistake, it won't happen between the 2nd & 3rd games.
They've also stated they've written the reasons for loss of powers, gear and money into the story, but cannot go into it for obvious spoiler reasons.
This is why I can be a bit more forgiving than some I guess, it just makes sense to avoid players being overpowered.
Biotic powers, whilst largely being harnessed through the mind, also make use of technology. One could probably guess to what Bioware's in-game reason would be from that alone. shouldn't this have a spoiler alert? Maybe some of the posts should have spoiler alert. Bioware have gone on record saying whats in that video is not a spoiler as such.
The game is set 2 years later and they say there'll be a "good reason" for your stats being reset. Probably some nice little device about Shepherd being "out of action" after completing the first game or something. You wouldn't expect a soldier who'd been lazing around down the pub for 2 years to go back to war fighting fit! :wink:
In terms of incorperating the events and characters, I guess if the Rachni are alive you will get side missions surrounding them that you wouldn't get if you let them die or if you didn't play ME1 (just like the "background" missions and the later Paragon/Renegade specific ones, or the missions you only get if certain characters on your crew trust you enough to tell you about them). If you didn't play ME1 then some incedental characters like Conrad Verner (the fan) probably wouldn't show up or would be introduced as if you don't know them. Easily done, just a couple of different dialogue trees...
Have some faith for crying out loud! As for the box art, I'm not quite sure what makes this "tacky sci fi novel" and the first game "awe inspiring work of art"!!! Moribundman,
Do you think that if you allowed characters and races to live in Mass Effect 1 you'll actually end up with a larger game in Mass Effect 2, because you'll get side missions involving said characters and species? I really can't see tha. As I keep suggesting, for me, Bioware have to ensure the game is equal, fair, and enjoyable for newcomers and experienced alike. As such, there won't be any advantage to players who happened to allow everyone and everything to live in 1 and benefit in 2. No, the very best anyone can hope for is some incidental situation where an old character will appear, but if you happened to allow them to die, or killed them, their role will be replaced by a new character. But I can barely see anything worthwhile happening around characters who's fate you chose.
As probably expected, I have a theory as to how Bioware could take our Sheppard back to zero!
They weren't being misleading when they said Sheppard's dead, but I think they retracted a marketing idea that looked as though it was going to backfire! We've seen the videos in their developer diary, introduction several clues to the begining of Mass Effect 2. This is why they don't consider it a spoiler in any way, as they've really only shown stuff that happens very early on in the adventure.
They admit, and it clearly shows the Normandy in trouble, and as the developer said, it had a fight with a ship it couldn't beat, so that gets rid of the Normandy, ready for a new ship to take it's place. We see Sheppard and two other characters get away in escape pods; Liara and Joker. Perhaps others get away, and Bioware will create some 'destroyed on impact', 'lost in space' excuse to clear out ME 1 characters in order we start the whole 'find a team, take on the galaxy' routine again.
So, Sheppard, Liara and Joker escape in a pod. There could be some kind of 'accident' which results in Sheppard being badly injured, unconscious, or in a coma. They injured Sheppard (sort of) at the begining of Mass Effect 1, and let's be honest, it's a dramatic device which could allow for Sheppard's loss of skills. As for his loss of equipment, with the ship gone you would expect an escape pod, by it's very nature, to be used in emergencies and would be completely bare of weapons, etc. well perhaps an emergency pistol or two.
Bioware have also stated in Mass Effect 2 we'll have to be aware of 'fuel' when travelling the galaxy. We didn't have to with the Normandy, so I'm guessing that's an easy introduction to a replacement ship that's less capable than the Normandy.
As for the loss of money, with Sheppard's apparent death it's used as a device so Sheppard can disappear off the radar, going undercover so to speak. Why? Well perhaps, as Bioware have told us that the main adversary is an assassin, we need to track him down and can stay one step ahead of this cunning foe by apparently being dead! Oh yeah, an assassin, that seems like an easy way of ensuring plenty of past characters don't appear in Mass Effect 2 too!
Personally I hope I'm wrong on all accounts! But they're all story devices we've seen before in books, movies or games. The destruction of the Normandy is straight out of many sci fi movies! It also allows for the creative minds at Bioware to create a whole new ship for Sheppard to travel in. Hopefully the new one will be less clinical and more interesting to roam about in than the Normandy. Just a thought or three. I *do* confidently believe the game will be "bigger" if you carry over saves. Which is not to say Bioware will **** over n00bs with the main game... Just think about all the quests that open up back at the citadel in ME1 and take you off someplace new. If you ignore those you could say the game was "smaller".
I've read that there will be a "canon" version of ME1 for newbies which will just be presented like Shepherds history on Torphin/Akuze in the first game - often referred to but not seen.
If you played Throne of Bhall, and you started aa relationship in Baldurs Gate II with the Elf woman (Aerie?), there is a whole PLOTLINE in the expansion which has an effect on the way the game plays out - (I assume this is not considered a spoiler now...) she has your kid and that kid is potentially a descendent of the God of Murder... You have a whole spin off quest thread with implications on the main game plot.
If you start Throne of Bhall with aa new chracter, or even with the same character who has not had a relationship, or pursued one with either of the other two "available" women, you don't get that plot. It doesn't "lessen" the game, but it rewards players who have been loyal to the series.
Similarly, if you carry your PC over from Baldurs Gate 1 to 2 you lose a lot of your powers because you've been imprisoned. This doesn't happen between 2 and 2.5. You may be right. But I'd be extremely surprised if the game is smaller for newcomers, or those creating a whole new character.
I've nver played Baldurs Gate, but you seem to have ruined the whole game for me now!! I'm joking, of course, I have no interest in the game. Maybe my idea that Liara will have a little baby Sheppard wasn't so far fetched after all. Also looking forward to visiting the Asari homeworld (assuming that happens in either of the sequels). Wouldn't going out clubbing there be a lot of fun!?!? On a planet like that who'd ever care to stay in and play videogames (or write endless thoughts and predictions on a game). Asari homeworld is a yup for ME2. Confirmed.
As for Paragon/Renegade status - where you left ME1 in terms of morality impacts where you pick up in ME2. I bet they DO reset the actual bars tho.
interesting thing I read was if the humans were left running the council, the citadel will be a totally different place from if the aliens were left in charge. Could be interesting... Anyone else think the box art '2' looks like its cut straight from Gears of War :lol: Much prefer the original box art - I don't like the comic style for this one, especially when the game isn't like that. Looks like this is art done for the iPhone game rather than the "proper" versions.
Some interesting theories about plot development in this thread, and I like it. Although it'd be nice if what you did in ME1 actually mattered. I made my decisions because I thought they would, and it didn't affect the game story at all. Killing (or calming) Wrex, saving Kaiden or Ashley, sleeping with Ashley or Liara - none of them had any effect on the actual plot, just things that characters said in the ship after.
If there was something in ME2 where an ex-crew member could get you access to something or trigger a sub-plot would be great. For example, if you slept with Liara (as I did because Ashley bugged the hell out of me), Ashley could leave the crew because her jealousy became a factor. Then, if you needed her for something, too bad. Like if you needed access to a krogan settlement but had killed Wrex in ME1, tough. The reverse would also be possible, so if you take someone on a mission and they have a dislike for that particular race, then having them dead could be a good thing.
Can't wait for this though. DUDE! Thanks for sharing! :D I've played both BG II and the expansion to completion and the only female I didn't get past flirting with was the half-elf druid. However, Aerie, was the easiest to get in the sack (I managed to do it while still during the opening adventures in the main city), but the relationship ended shortly there after. Given the 150+ hours of gameplay in BGII alone I just haven't had the heart to go back and play the game over again, so thank you for sharing one path that I clearly missed. :) Moribundman,
I had actually attempted to skirt around spoilers for people still playing, but as you've mentioned the final game decision I suppose I can comment on it. And yes, you're absolutely right. Of all the decisions made in the game, choosing who's left to run the Citadel should have a massive effect on the sequels. But are we really expecting there to be that many variations available to us in one game?
The story for everyone of us in ME2 will be identical except for the odd minor incidental or converstaional change. I'm convinced we all thought our decisions were important... after all we were choosing whether people or species lived. But what were we thinking... was a sequel really going to have so many wildly different story arcs? I think we fooled ourselves into believing Mass Effect is as ambitious as our imagination.
Dajmin, Aaaarrghhh! I didn't know we got to sleep with Ashley!!! Unbelievably, having played through the game more times than I care to mention, I only chose a male Sheppard a couple of times (mostly because his voice acting is so poor by comparison to the female version), and both of which chose Liara. And female Sheppard (as hard as I try!) can't convince Ashley that the Asari mating habits might be worth experimenting with!! I'll keep playing, maybe there's a hidden conversational branch that'll lead to an Ashely, Liara, female Sheppard... ok I'll stop there, you get the idea! It's entirely possible to sleep with Ashley as either male or female Shephard, she's obviously both irritating and not picky :)
If you're well liked by both I think you just turn down Liara when she comes to your room and Ashley comes in after. Not 100% sure, since obviously I don't like her attitude enough to give her a piece of the Shep :p Dajmin, are you mad? Turn down Liara so close to the promise of seducing her? You're a sick man! My current Sheppard, Natasha, is sadly going to bed the most boring man in sci fi, that biotic loser, only because all the previous female Sheppards have had a soft spot for Liara (can't think why)! The other Sheppard I'm working on is male, so I've already decided he's going 'service' Ashley. But I can't believe a female Sheppard has the option of Ashley too! If it's true, it seems like I have the prospect of going through another adventure with a new Sheppard sister! |
