Forums: Index > Watercooler > Impact of ME1 Decisions

Not that I'm really complaining, but doesn't it seem that the decisions made in ME1 don't have much impact in ME2? (Gameplay wise, not story wise) For example, saving the Council allows you to be reinstated as a Spectre, but really, that doesn't mean anything in ME2. Dialogue on the Citadel changes dramatically, true, but gameplay-wise, there's really not much of a difference. I would have thought that being reinstated as a Spectre would allow you to at least access Spectre gear again, or something similar. Same thing with Wrex surviving Virmire or not---he may be all friendly to Shepard when he arrives on Tuchanka, but killing him on Virmire and having Urdnot Wreav be leader of the clan doesn't make the quests more difficult to accomplish. It's mentioned that the welcome on the Krogan homeworld will be less friendly, but that doesn't actually make any difference in the way you do missions or assignments.

Don't get me wrong, the change in the atmosphere and storyline is great. I just wish the decisions had more of an impact in-game aside from what people say. Take the turian from Rodam's expeditions---killing the council makes him biased against humans, while saving the Council has him much friendlier. But does his hatred for humans prevent you from getting a discount? No. Does his love for you give you a bigger discount? No. Seems like the decisions are largely superficial, though that's not necessarily a bad thing---just wish it had more...impact, so to speak.

Personally, I hope saving the rachni queen on Noveria will let us see a rachni army going medieval on the Reapers' collective asses in Mass Effect 3. Here's hoping. Rath101 03:18, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't want any obvious advantages to be conferred to a player based solely on arbitrary gameplay choices made in the last game - there is no reason a player who let the Council die should not have access to Specter gear. This has long been one of my problems with BW games (one of the few problems) - there is usually a significant advantage in taking either the "good" or "evil" path (and I alway try both at least once). Note that this does not hold for gameplay - if you could not gain a character's loyalty, or dawdled in saving the crew, or failed to upgrade your ship, I am fine with those consequences carrying over into the next game. Those deal with the quality and thoroughness of your play - not the choices you make.
The problem with ME2 is that there are few significant changes from ME1. Whatever you did then, your mission, start to finish, will essentially still be the same. There are no unique missions for those who let Wrex live or die. You do not carry over the romance.
It is my hope that ME2 had such a narrow focus for the benefit of ME3. If ME2 was too contingent upon the outcome of ME1, there might be too many possible pathways come ME3. By having limited choices in ME2, independent of ME1, they should better be able to incorporate ALL the major decisions made in ME1 and ME2 into the final chapter.MisterD 07:56, March 6, 2010 (UTC)MisterD 03:55, March 6 2010
I get what your saying. But I would have been comfortable with a 'reap what you sow' kind of reward system. I'm not asking the developers need to PUNISH you for playing a certain way by making the game more difficult or by excluding missions from you simply because you made a different decision, that's definitely not what I'm after. I TOTALLY AGREE that giving advantages to one way of playing the story while conferring none to the other would be a letdown; I wasn't trying to suggest anything like that. But they could give DIFFERENT advantages to playing a certain way.
For example, possibly allowing Spectre gear to those who get to be reinstated as a Spectre, while providing some other sort of reward for those who chose to let the Council die (I dunno, maybe Cerberus-specific gear because of their pro-human views, so to speak). I wouldn't even care if the stats for the gear were IDENTICAL, but at least if they were aesthetically different, it would seem more like your decision meant something. But I want to really feel like my actions gave me some sort of tangible benefit. Wrex surviving might not necessarily make one quest easier and another quest harder to accomplish, but instead changed the way the quests were to be accomplished, for example. But as it stands, (using the above as an example), Urdnot Wreav seems just as eager to accept Grunt into Clan Urdnot, and Gatatog Uvenk's actions are the same regardless of who the Urdnot clan leader is.
Decision-making should be important in an RPG like Mass Effect. If your decisions simply change how an NPC greets you, then what's the point in making them, right? Decisions should be difficult because they are supposed to mean something. It should change the world dramatically and they should have true consequences and rewards. In that way, they would seem more significant. I know that when I first played ME1 and I knew that my decisions would carry over into ME2, I labored over whether or not to let the Council survive. I was kinda disappointed that saving or killing the Council made almost no difference gameplay wise. If for example, they did the same thing to Mass Effect 3, and blowing up the Collector base or keeping the technology for Cerberus to use against the Reapers makes little difference in the long run, it would be a tremendous disappointment.
Still, I suppose I'll still have to wait for ME3 to see exactly what happens. I do hope your right though, that in ME3 the decisions we make should count for something more. The story is just too damn good to be wasted otherwise. Rath101 10:38, March 6, 2010 (UTC)

I pray that the Rachni, and Geth armies show up in ME3 on my good profile, i saved both and want to see some epic war fare on the Reapers. I wish i there had been an option to realy help the krogans so they could build up a super army to fight the Reapers to, Also how much time will pass between ME2 and ME3 because the reapers move slow in dark space and the galaxy is realy far away. Antily3f 22:10, March 10, 2010 (UTC)

A geth army would be cool. I imagine that you might have a united krogan army if you allowed Wrex to survive in the very first game, since he's working on uniting all the clans and whatnot. No details on how much time will pass between ME2 and ME3, though. But I think the Reapers would have some form of fast movement without having to rely on a mass relay. I think the Collector Ship that attacked the Normandy came out of nowhere after the Reaper IFF was installed, and looking at the cutscene there was no mass relay around either. But a few years should pass between ME2 and ME3 in my opinion---give enough time for the story to develop further. Here's a list of stuff I hope they implement:
  1. RACHNI! Woohoo! Unstoppable army of gargantuan bugs!
  2. Krogan army!
  3. The Geth on our side for once!
  4. Shepard punching the lights out on that turian council member's face! (He's such an ungrateful tool.) Rath101 23:04, March 10, 2010 (UTC)
I think due to the fact that ME2 is a 2nd installment, the devs were forced to make a more independent game to help build additional fan base and that ME3 will be much more dependent on the choices made in ME1 and ME2. If this is not the case, then I will be really pissed off at BioWare. I also hope its not some lame effect like a 30 second cut scene of Rachni and Geth joing the space battle and instead allowing you to have a Rachni teamate and actual help by the Rachni and Geth in game.
Amoeba1126 19:18, March 14, 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. I'm hoping that our decisions will indeed make significant differences in the third and final game. It's such a great series that it would be a shame if it didn't. Still, Bioware hasn't let us down yet in terms of their RPG's (at least, not in any MAJOR way that I can think of), so I'll keep the faith and wait patiently. (And BIOWARE, PLEASE PLEASE let me shoot the Illusive Man---that smug face of his really pisses me off. =P ) Rath101 03:45, March 16, 2010 (UTC)

I do think that all this stuff should have more impact, but I always felt that the game should punish the player for choosing a certain path. You wanna be an evil bastard and kill the council in MS1 you don't get Spectre status and gear and nothing on the renegade side balances it out. At the same time, you wanna be a good guy and destroy the Collector base, you're gonna have your work cut out for you much more in MS3. I am sick of the 'good' and 'bad' side getting virtually the same thing at the end. Setimir92 00:57, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Ad blocker interference detected!

Wikia is a free-to-use site that makes money from advertising. We have a modified experience for viewers using ad blockers

Wikia is not accessible if you’ve made further modifications. Remove the custom ad blocker rule(s) and the page will load as expected.