Mass Effect 1 Retrospective Speculation

[ChaosArchon]

So while on a bus ride I realized that Mass Effect 1 feels like a different game in terms of story than in 2 or 3, in my opinion. In ME1 for a good amount of the story you believed Saren was the Big Bad and Sovereign was just a really powerful ship. Then the twist was Saren was being controlled by Sovereign and that the ship was the precursor of a race of omnicidal, nigh unstoppable Old God-esque machines. The next two games have you deal with the Reapers and their eventual invasion but by that point they don't really seem quite as alien, they're just the enemy who you are fighting despite the odds.

It may just be me but i felt that Mass Effect 1 had more mystery about it and that the twist with Sovereign, at the time, was a pretty massive one. Anyway your thoughts would be appreciated.

[Erloas]

I'm not sure where this thread can go, because I kind of thought that was sort of the whole point. You can really only have one big twist like that and it pretty much has to be in the first game. Trying to do another twist of similar scope in the later games simply wouldn't work. The first game was definitely building the universe and setting the stage and the first game couldn't have ended without the reveal (at least if the later games wanted to feel connected and not an unrelated sequel).

Although I think the second game did a good job at keeping them unknown and mysterious still. I feel that overall the pacing of the story and revelations were pretty good across all three games.

I think some of the gameplay mechanics of the first game did a better job of making the setting feel futuristic and unique where as the later games had some aspects that felt much more gamey. There were improvements as well from a mechanical standpoint but most of them were either irrelevant to the feel of the story or negatively affected it.

[GolemsVoice]

Well, the third game had the "twist" that the Reapers were

like, just trying to save organics, man, by, like, killing them, yeah?

[Tebryn]

Well, the third game had the "twist" that the Reapers were

like, just trying to save organics, man, by, like, killing them, yeah?

That was at the end of two...and even in the middle of two. Harbinger more or less taunts you with that fact the entire time. Lines like "We are your salvation." and a ton of the other stuff he says isn't there to just shove your face into the dirt. He's being serious and you've no reason to disbelieve him considering no Reaper at that point has lied to you. It's beyond their ability to lie to such lesser things. It's all but thrown in your face when you fight the Human Reaper Larvae.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm not sure where this thread can go, because I kind of thought that was sort of the whole point.

Mass Effect 3 ending bitchfest? I mean I'm fairly sure that on the day they unplug the internet forever, the very last byte transmitted will be the full stop at the end of an angry rant about Mass Effect 3's ending.


Probably from me.

[Whoracle]

[...]and that the twist with Sovereign, at the time, was a pretty massive one[...]

So, you could say the twist had a massive effect?

Okok, I'll stop* :D

That being said, yeah, 1 was a completely different game from 2 (never played 3), and in my eyes it was the superior one. They shared a universe, bot not a story, and neither a pacing, IMHO.

*I regret nothing!

[Domochevsky]

Well, there was this tiny detail of the game not being a trilogy. ME1 was never planned to have a sequel or two. Hence why the followups are both terrible when it suddenly turned out to have always been at war with trilogy. >_>

(See also: The Matrix. First movie: Ossum. Followups: What the hell.)

[Zevox]

Well, there was this tiny detail of the game not being a trilogy. ME1 was never planned to have a sequel or two. Hence why the followups are both terrible when it suddenly turned out to have always been at war with trilogy. >_>
:smallconfused: Um, what? Setting aside disagreements about the sequels, everything I've ever heard said the story was planned as a trilogy from the start. And the ending certainly seemed to indicate the story was fully intended to be continued, given it left the whole Reaper plotline unresolved but had Shepard fully intending to continue pursuing it.

[The Rose Dragon]

:smallconfused: Um, what? Setting aside disagreements about the sequels, everything I've ever heard said the story was planned as a trilogy from the start. And the ending certainly seemed to indicate the story was fully intended to be continued, given it left the whole Reaper plotline unresolved but had Shepard fully intending to continue pursuing it.

Not to mention the various flags that have no purpose in the first game itself, and exist only for importing saves to sequels.

[SmartAlec]

:smallconfused: Um, what? Setting aside disagreements about the sequels, everything I've ever heard said the story was planned as a trilogy from the start. And the ending certainly seemed to indicate the story was fully intended to be continued, given it left the whole Reaper plotline unresolved but had Shepard fully intending to continue pursuing it.

If you look at some of the dialogue in the first game, it suggests otherwise. Shepard tries to convince Saren that the 'Reaper invasion doesn't have to happen' if Saren works against it.

If you simply remove the very end of the story, with Shepard declaring his intention to continue looking into it, then the first game could just as easily work as a stand-alone, with the Reapers forever dormant, waiting for a wakeup call that will never come.

In order to continue the story, ME2 had to tweak/retcon a few things. the Council had to shift from supporting Shepard to denying the truth and sending him against the Geth. Cerberus had to be rewritten as a paramilitary human-centric terrorist organisation, rather than the black-ops science team gone rogue that they were in ME1.

These retcons are handled fairly well, but it could be suggested that these things were not planned from the start. ME1 has the feel of a game that was intended originally as a stand-alone, but was turned into part 1 of a trilogy halfway in development.

[Zevox]

If you look at some of the dialogue in the first game, it suggests otherwise. Shepard tries to convince Saren that the 'Reaper invasion doesn't have to happen' if Saren works against it.
Yes, because in the immediate sense, if Sovereign doesn't call the Reapers, there's no invasion. That doesn't mean there's no other way for it to happen, but that's what Shepard and Saren were focused on at the time, so that's how they spoke.


If you simply remove the very end of the story, with Shepard declaring his intention to continue looking into it, then the first game could just as easily work as a stand-alone, with the Reapers forever dormant, waiting for a wakeup call that will never come.
And why would you do that? If the game had been re-released with that part of the ending added on your argument would make sense, but that's not what happened. That was in there from the beginning.


the Council had to shift from supporting Shepard to denying the truth and sending him against the Geth. Cerberus had to be rewritten as a paramilitary human-centric terrorist organisation, rather than the black-ops science team gone rogue that they were in ME1.
Um, the Council never supported Shepard on the matter of the Reapers. And Cerberus we never saw real details of in 1, so the various science branches we dealt with in 1 being part of a larger organization makes perfect sense.

[SmartAlec]

And why would you do that? If the game had been re-released with that part of the ending added on your argument would make sense, but that's not what happened. That was in there from the beginning.

We can't say that with any certainty. It's such a small, simple scene, set in such an odd place using existing assets rather than setting it in some rebuilt area (some place on the Praesidium?), that it has the feel of a scene put together quickly following a rewrite at some point in development.


Um, the Council never supported Shepard on the matter of the Reapers. And Cerberus we never saw real details of in 1, so the various science branches we dealt with in 1 being part of a larger organization makes perfect sense.

The end scene of ME1 gives the impression that the Council are now on Shepard's 'side' vis a vis the Reapers, and believe the story. Watch it again on YouTube, it's there.

As for Cerberus, Admiral Kahoku and Corporal Toombs make Cerberus's origins clear - they're a rogue Alliance black-ops science division that Kahoku stumbles across. They even killed some of his men to keep their existence secret. It's not until Mass Effect 2 that Cerberus is retconned into an independent group organised into seperate cells, with a public manifesto.

[Zevox]

We can't say that with any certainty.
Yes we can. There was never any version of the game without it.


It's such a small, simple scene, set in such an odd place using existing assets rather than setting it in some rebuilt area (some place on the Praesidium?), that it has the feel of a scene put together quickly following a rewrite at some point in development.
So basically, you're just speculating based on what you personally think the "feel" of the game and that scene are. Well, guess there's no way to convince you that you're wrong then, but I will say that I do not see any real evidence that you're right, nor do I agree with you about the "feel" of those things.


The end scene of ME1 gives the impression that the Council are now on Shepard's 'side' vis a vis the Reapers, and believe the story. Watch it again on YouTube, it's there.
Um, no, it doesn't. It gives the impression that Anderson is on your side, which he is and remains. Udina, well, he's a political opportunist, and you just saved the Citadel, so if you pick him he of course speaks in support of you at the time.

The Council themselves though? They thank you for your heroism, and speak very broad terms about the future, but never say anything to indicate they now believe you about the Reapers. Heck, they have no lines of dialogue after Shepard brings the Reapers up again - only Anderson or Udina do.


As for Cerberus, Admiral Kahoku and Corporal Toombs make Cerberus's origins clear - they're a rogue Alliance black-ops science division that Kahoku stumbles across. They even killed some of his men to keep their existence secret. It's not until Mass Effect 2 that Cerberus is retconned into an independent group organised into seperate cells, with a public manifesto.
...and? It's not as if those two things are in any way at odds.

[warty goblin]

To be honest, I never really felt Mass Effect needed a sequel. The first game had an enjoyable narrative with effective execution, that ended on a satisfying if cheesetastic note. Reapers stuck out in black space for ten bazillion years or so sounds like a win to me, anything after that just involves making up stupid stuff that breaks the rules set down by the first game.

[SmartAlec]

Yes we can. There was never any version of the game without it.

No released version, but we don't know at what stage of drafting and development the scene was written. It could have been in the beginning, or it could have been close to the end.


...and? It's not as if those two things are in any way at odds.

They are very much at odds. ME2's codex goes into detail surrounding Cerberus's origins, and they're certainly not a former Alliance black-ops group. Cerberus's nature from ME1 to ME2 really is as clear a retcon as I've ever seen in a computer game narrative.

The dissonance was made clear from a number of people who complained when ME2 came out: they wanted an option to not work with Cerberus, because Cerberus's villainy in ME1 made working with them seriously unpalatable. I don't think that anyone working on ME1 thought that Shepard would be working with Cerberus in ME2.


Well, guess there's no way to convince you that you're wrong then

Why try to convince me? This is speculation on both sides.

The thing we don't know is - at what point in Mass Effect 1's development was it decided that it would be a full-on trilogy, rather than simply be an introduction into the franchise, as (for example) Dragon Age: Origins was? From a recent interview with Drew Karpyshyn, it's clear that the trilogy storyline itself was never planned out from start to finish.

[Zevox]

They are very much at odds. ME2's codex goes into detail surrounding Cerberus's origins, and they're certainly not a former Alliance black-ops group. Cerberus's nature from ME1 to ME2 really is as clear a retcon as I've ever seen in a computer game narrative.
No, actually, I just checked ME2's codex entry on Cerberus, and it does not go into any real detail about their origins. It talks briefly about the first time their propaganda (or possibly propaganda that inspired their creation, it's not clear which) began to circulate, and the first time a terrorist action was linked to them, and that's it. Nothing in it is at odds with them having formed from an Alliance black-ops group gone rogue.


From a recent interview with Drew Karpyshyn, it's clear that the trilogy storyline itself was never planned out from start to finish.
Oh, that much was clear enough on its own. And it's not really surprising - it's a big story, and these things evolve in the telling anyway.

Which is, incidentally, why I don't buy the argument about Cerberus being retconned. Rather, it seems to me that they simply fleshed out a group that ME1 had already established as the series went along. That's a natural part of the story growing in the telling, not a retcon.

[The Rose Dragon]

Actually, the Illusive Man's backstory is consistent with the whole rogue Alliance black ops thing. It's just that the black ops group wasn't named Cerberus until after it went rogue.

[SmartAlec]

Which is, incidentally, why I don't buy the argument about Cerberus being retconned. Rather, it seems to me that they simply fleshed out a group that ME1 had already established as the series went along. That's a natural part of the story growing in the telling, not a retcon.


Actually, the Illusive Man's backstory is consistent with the whole rogue Alliance black ops thing. It's just that the black ops group wasn't named Cerberus until after it went rogue.

Looking at Kahoku's account:


It was a group called Cerberus. An Alliance black-ops organisation. Top secret, highest-level security clearance. They vanished a few months ago. Dropped right off the grid. No-one knew where they went or what they were up to. They've gone completely rogue, Shepard! They're conducting illegal genetic experiments, trying to create some kind of supersoldier!

According to that, 'Cerberus' is a classified military-scientific group inside the Alliance that's been hidden, anonymous, inside some Alliance research division until a few months before ME1 begins. Up until that point, they were working for the Alliance.

According to the ME2 Codex entry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBT0cMTpr4w), Cerberus is a group that's been known about for almost twenty years, their terrorist acts and experiments are known, their scientific endeavours are privately funded, and the Citadel Council considers them an enemy.

The second account contradicts the first. That's a clear-cut case of retroactive continuity.

[Tavar]

Best description I've heard regarding Cerberus:



Drew Karpyshyn wanted an excuse to showcase his totally cool GMPC faction he made for the sequel. :v
And this is the simple truth; ME2 Cerberus and the Ilsuesive Man are total f****** GMPCs, and if a GM tried to do in person what Bioware did in ME2 I'd laugh them off the table.

Also, Here's the breakdown of the trilogy as it regards the Reapers, in my opinion:
ME1: Meet the Reapers.
ME2: Mildly Inconvenience the Reapers.
ME3: Run around the Galaxy and let the MacGuffin Stop the Reapers.

Ignoring the problems with the third game, the Second had real issues, at least with regards to how it fits in the trilogy. It's essentially a mission in another game, padded out to be a full length game with the NPC recruitment stuff. The main narrative, though? Easily the size of a normal mission in the other games.

Oh, and the expansion, bordering on invention, of a faction, despite having a faction that could fill the same purpose already created in universe, and one's who's contact with you isn't marred, either by background or side missions.

The last big issue I have is probably the amount that the ME universe bends over backwards for Humanity. I mean, consider this: in the space of 32 years, Humanity goes from stuck in it's home system to having numerous colonies, and is considered a powerful member of the Citadel. What?

[The Rose Dragon]

Ignoring the problems with the third game, the Second had real issues, at least with regards to how it fits in the trilogy. It's essentially a mission in another game, padded out to be a full length game with the NPC recruitment stuff. The main narrative, though? Easily the size of a normal mission in the other games.

Recruiting a team that could defeat the Reapers was the main narrative of Mass Effect 2.

Come to think of it, that annoyed me far more than the whole ending thing in Mass Effect 3. When you go around recruiting the best of the best for a task that is literally of galactic importance for an entire game, you would expect them to stick around until the task is actually finished. Mordin and Thane, I can understand leaving, but not anyone else.

[SmartAlec]

Recruiting a team that could defeat the Reapers was the main narrative of Mass Effect 2.

I thought ME2 was all about gathering a team to fight the Collectors, not the Reapers. The mission through the Omega-4 Relay was described as a suicide mission, so I thought the expectation was that no-one would be coming back.

As far as them not sticking around went, they managed to make that semi-plausible. With Shepard's fate in Alliance custody being unknown after the events of Arrival and the Repaers on their way, makes sense the crew would split up to do what they could while Shepard was out of it.

[The Rose Dragon]

I thought ME2 was all about gathering a team to fight the Collectors, not the Reapers. The mission through the Omega-4 Relay was described as a suicide mission, so I thought the expectation was that no-one would be coming back.

Nope, Shepard pretty clearly says "if I'm going to fight the Reapers, I'll need the best". The immediate emergency connected to the Reapers is the Collectors collecting their collection, but it's obvious that Shepard is only fighting them to slow the Reapers' plan. And considering the game's tagline is "They call it a suicide mission. Prove them wrong.", the whole point is to get your team to a point where they can come back from the mission.

[Mordokai]

Recruiting a team that could defeat the Reapers was the main narrative of Mass Effect 2.

Come to think of it, that annoyed me far more than the whole ending thing in Mass Effect 3. When you go around recruiting the best of the best for a task that is literally of galactic importance for an entire game, you would expect them to stick around until the task is actually finished. Mordin and Thane, I can understand leaving, but not anyone else.

Garrus left for Palaven to create a dedicated team for fighting the Reapers. Or something along those lines, been some time.
Samara left for her justicar duties. We know you could chain her down and that wouldn't stop her.
Grunt is, well... Grunt. Wrex or Wreav promised him some sort of challenge and he turned out as leader of Aralakh company. I think you'd be hard pressed to keep him away from that.
Miranda has her hands full of evading Cerberus and TIM's assassins. Not sure what happens if she's not loyal to you. Dead, probably.
Jacob was busy philandering around the galaxy :smalltongue: Well, that and I think he mentions he wants to take some time off after the Collectors mission is done.
Just try and keep Jack around against her will. I imagine the same holds true for Zaeed.
Tali got promoted to admiral. And even before she knew that, I imagine she had a lot to report back to the Fleet.
Legion carried the knowledge of organics and everything associated beyond the Perseus Veil.
And Kasumi... she becomes a creepy recluse, spending her days with the last of what's left of her dead boyfriend.

Most of them have pretty good reasons to not stick around. And as Joker mentioned in the second game... we were your team commander. Without you, everything just fell apart. For all purposes, the situation is the same as at the beginning of the second game. Shepard may not be dead, but she's not there to keep her team in one piece. Without her, everybody just drifts in his or her own direction.

[The Rose Dragon]

Most of them have pretty good reasons to not stick around. And as Joker mentioned in the second game... we were your team commander. Without you, everything just fell apart. For all purposes, the situation is the same as at the beginning of the second game. Shepard may not be dead, but she's not there to keep her team in one piece. Without her, everybody just drifts in his or her own direction.

Doesn't make it any less lazy from where I'm standing. Hell, I'm sure that if Tali and Garrus weren't fan favorites, they would be similarly guest starring in various quests rather than being full fledged crew members.

[SmartAlec]

Nope, Shepard pretty clearly says "if I'm going to fight the Reapers, I'll need the best". The immediate emergency connected to the Reapers is the Collectors collecting their collection, but it's obvious that Shepard is only fighting them to slow the Reapers' plan.

I've tried looking for that quote or something like it, through the early mission briefings on YouTube, but I can't find it. Shepard does say "I'll need a team, a good one," but it's in the context of 'I'll need a team to do what you're asking', i.e. fight the Collectors. Whenever Shepard recruits someone, he tells them about the Collector threat and how he needs them to help deal with that, but there's rarely any mention of asking anyone to continue working for Shepard for the larger Reaper conflict, and when there is, it's with those characters who were already involved (Garrus, Tali).

[Tavar]

Recruiting a team that could defeat the Reapers was the main narrative of Mass Effect 2.

Come to think of it, that annoyed me far more than the whole ending thing in Mass Effect 3. When you go around recruiting the best of the best for a task that is literally of galactic importance for an entire game, you would expect them to stick around until the task is actually finished. Mordin and Thane, I can understand leaving, but not anyone else.
If the main narrative is dropped the second the game ends, perhaps it wasn't actually the main narrative.

[Zevox]

Looking at Kahoku's account:



According to that, 'Cerberus' is a classified military-scientific group inside the Alliance that's been hidden, anonymous, inside some Alliance research division until a few months before ME1 begins. Up until that point, they were working for the Alliance.

According to the ME2 Codex entry (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBT0cMTpr4w), Cerberus is a group that's been known about for almost twenty years, their terrorist acts and experiments are known, their scientific endeavours are privately funded, and the Citadel Council considers them an enemy.

The second account contradicts the first. That's a clear-cut case of retroactive continuity.
Alright, fair enough. Nonetheless, it seems to me that it doesn't constitute evidence of the first game having originally been planned to be a stand-alone rather than the first in the series. Rather it simply means that as Cerberus' role in things was expanded, they felt the need to alter their backstory somewhat, which would be the case here regardless of whether the story being a trilogy was their intent from the beginning or not.

[Tavar]

I don't think ME was ever intended to be a one off game. I do believe(with significant back up from the developers) that the rest of the trilogy wasn't planned out at all, which is essentially the same thing. The fact that the story team was not consistent only made things worse.

[stabbybelkar]

As for Cerberus, Admiral Kahoku and Corporal Toombs make Cerberus's origins clear - they're a rogue Alliance black-ops science division that Kahoku stumbles across. They even killed some of his men to keep their existence secret. It's not until Mass Effect 2 that Cerberus is retconned into an independent group organised into seperate cells, with a public manifesto.

Wrong. Mass Effect 1's Codex entry on Cerberus makes it very clear that they are a completely independant terrorist group, had a public manifesto, and are being led by someone called The Illusive Man. There was no retcon involved.

[SmartAlec]

Wrong. Mass Effect 1's Codex entry on Cerberus makes it very clear that they are a completely independant terrorist group, had a public manifesto, and are being led by someone called The Illusive Man. There was no retcon involved.

I went through the list of Codex entries (http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex_Entry_Guide) in Mass Effect 1, and went as far as to reinstall the game and look at my saved-games, to confirm that there is no Cerberus codex entry in Mass Effect 1. You're describing the ME2 Codex entry.

[Thrawn183]

I had a much easier time hitting targets in Mass Effect 2 and 3. For some reason, I missed way more than I'm used to in Mass Effect 1. Oh... story.... oops.

I felt far more of a connection to characters, Tali in particular, in 2 rather than the original. Unfortunately, when playing 3 I was doing the typical paragon path when I suddenly, unexpectedly and irrevocably ended up on a romance path with a dumb Asari rather than Tali. A certain Turian stole my woman and from that point on I was fairly unengaged with the story.

Very poor design, that.

[Emperor Ing]

I really really REALLY wished they kept combat from ME1 more-or-less the same. I still can't get over how they turned a completely unique, fast-paced, and fun combat system into a crawl-fest where whoever peeks out of cover first bites the bullet.

[warty goblin]

I really really REALLY wished they kept combat from ME1 more-or-less the same. I still can't get over how they turned a completely unique, fast-paced, and fun combat system into a crawl-fest where whoever peeks out of cover first bites the bullet.

I'm confused anybody thinks ME1's combat was good. It was a completely below average cover shooter. What I played of ME 2 ascended to the heady reaches of mostly average.

[Zevox]

I'm confused anybody thinks ME1's combat was good. It was a completely below average cover shooter. What I played of ME 2 ascended to the heady reaches of mostly average.
Minus the specific descriptors, I share the sentiment. ME2 and 3's combat far surpassed ME1's in every way. I can't even believe anyone would consider ME1's combat faster-paced than its successors, for that matter.

The only thing I wish they had kept was the overheat system instead of an ammo system - and at least in 3 you do get that in select DLC guns (although I'm not sure if any other than the first were released for the main, single-player portion of the game).

[Mordokai]

Yeah, seriously, if there was one thing in which ME1 one was lacking, it was most certainly it's clunky combat. Until you got high enough level it felt more like a lottery than anything else and once you did level yourself enough pretty much nothing could kill you anymore.

[warty goblin]

Yeah, seriously, if there was one thing in which ME1 one was lacking, it was most certainly it's clunky combat. Until you got high enough level it felt more like a lottery than anything else and once you did level yourself enough pretty much nothing could kill you anymore.

So pretty much true to RPG combat in other words.

[Mordokai]

So pretty much true to RPG combat in other words.

Point well taken :smallbiggrin: Still not much of a fan. ME1 has many good things. Combat system is sadly not one of them.

[Psyren]

So pretty much true to RPG combat in other words.

You say that like it's a good thing. Without the tactile feel of rolling dice yourself, these systems are dull at best, moreso when they're attached to a shooter and you clearly have an epic headshot lined up only for the underlying diceroller to go "Nope! Sorry!"

And don't get me started on ME1 biotics :smallsigh:


(Lest we forget, there was and in fact still is a time when "true RPG combat" meant selecting options off a menu, watching a brief cutscene, waiting for awhile, then repeating. Scintillating!)

[warty goblin]

You say that like it's a good thing. Without the tactile feel of rolling dice yourself, these systems are dull at best, moreso when they're attached to a shooter and you clearly have an epic headshot lined up only for the underlying diceroller to go "Nope! Sorry!"

Believe me, my general views on RPG combat are anything but favorable. There's too much of it in most RPGs, it takes too long, and a lot of it isn't particularly fun in the first place. I'm pretty much in Jennifer Hepler's wheelhouse on this one; a 'skip this pointless fight' would make me much more likely to actually want to play a lot of RPGs*.

I'm even less of a fan of the marriage of RPG stuff to a shooter. Attaching character skills to shooting, as you point out, really does nothing to enhance the experience. I come not to roll dice, but to shoot dudes. So lemme shoot dudes without leveling up my dude-shooting skills. It's a stupid progression system if the game being decently fun six hours in comes at the expense of it sucking for the first five and a half.



(Lest we forget, there was and in fact still is a time when "true RPG combat" meant selecting options off a menu, watching a brief cutscene, waiting for awhile, then repeating. Scintillating!)
This is another one of those excellent reasons I don't do nostalgia.

*I actually played an RPG that let you skip all the non-plot critical fights about a year ago. I think I played pretty much all the random encounters anyway, and didn't resent them in the least. There mere fact that there was an opt-out made them vastly less obnoxious, since I was there by my own volition, not because the game was locking away its plot behind another group of pointless human bandits.

[Mordokai]

And don't get me started on ME1 biotics :smallsigh:

Genuine inquiry: what about them? Not that I find them particularly good(or bad, for that matter) myself, but I'm wondering what's your beef with them.

[Psyren]

Believe me, my general views on RPG combat are anything but favorable. There's too much of it in most RPGs, it takes too long, and a lot of it isn't particularly fun in the first place. I'm pretty much in Jennifer Hepler's wheelhouse on this one; a 'skip this pointless fight' would make me much more likely to actually want to play a lot of RPGs*.

I love RPG combat when it's engaging. Secret of Mana was a good example, because you had to be aware of things like positioning and spell-queues. Jade Empire felt like a dyed-in-the-wool brawler, and pulling off harmonic combos was a ton of fun. And Morrowind/Skyrim had all kinds of tactical considerations like stealth, elevation, chokepoints, physics traps etc.

Diceroll combat, particularly where you don't even get to roll the dice, is less so. But D&D and CRPGs based on it at least still make positioning and area effects important, as well as partial-save and no-save abilities to minimize the "wow I just wasted my turn on that spell/attack, this sucks" effect.



I'm even less of a fan of the marriage of RPG stuff to a shooter. Attaching character skills to shooting, as you point out, really does nothing to enhance the experience. I come not to roll dice, but to shoot dudes. So lemme shoot dudes without leveling up my dude-shooting skills. It's a stupid progression system if the game being decently fun six hours in comes at the expense of it sucking for the first five and a half.

ME3 did a good job of not feeling that way I feel. The threat ramped up properly - you faced cannibals on earth, clustered Cerberus mooks on Mars, Husks on Palaven's moon etc., and by the time you were done with all that you had a germ of a build together to begin taking on things like Brutes and Marauders.

ME2 though was a pain. I never felt like I was actually playing the game until I did a NG+ because you were so helpless against certain defenses without the right guns and abilities. Without Kasumi's DLC, it took you so long to replace that godawful Shuriken that playing a caster was a royal PITA.


Genuine inquiry: what about them? Not that I find them particularly good(or bad, for that matter) myself, but I'm wondering what's your beef with them.

They weren't bad, just supremely unbalanced and wonky. A well placed Lift could end an entire fight (even lifting Armatures/Colossi at higher levels), but if you messed up with your power placement the cooldown was so long that you didn't feel like a caster at all. And your one damaging ability (Warp) was terrible in that game, and only slightly less terrible in ME2. ME3 was really where they finally got the combat right.

[Arbitrarity]

Genuine inquiry: what about them? Not that I find them particularly good(or bad, for that matter) myself, but I'm wondering what's your beef with them.

Huge duration, huge AOE, huge initial cooldowns, limitless targets and minimal resistance/immunity. Early game they just let you lock up most enemies for several seconds, then proceed to use your pistol for the next 30s. Lategame, it's permanent lockdown on everything, even with just Shepard. Shepard/Liara/Wrex can basically stunlock second stage Saren to death.
EDIT: ME1's Warp was excellent... If you played on Insanity and had to deal with ridiculous amounts of Immunity spam (SOLDIERS took it as a bonus power) Otherwise it was mostly useless.

ME2's shield/armor system improved this a bit, making Biotics something of a finishing blow, with brief CC on targets with defenses (Singularity was still useful though). Combos gave Biotics some unique AOE CC. GCD made it easier to pick what you needed at the moment, and normalized the effect of biotics.

ME3 improved a bit more, removing Insanity defenses from minions, and making combos that triggered through defenses, crucial for killing heavier targets. This got a bit crazy in multiplayer with chain staggers. In SP, Nova's ignoring GCD AOE stagger, plus invulnerability frames and shield recharge on charge, was a bit silly, and made Vanguard go from technically demanding to button mashing.

[warty goblin]

I love RPG combat when it's engaging. Secret of Mana was a good example, because you had to be aware of things like positioning and spell-queues. Jade Empire felt like a dyed-in-the-wool brawler, and pulling off harmonic combos was a ton of fun. And Morrowind/Skyrim had all kinds of tactical considerations like stealth, elevation, chokepoints, physics traps etc.

Diceroll combat, particularly where you don't even get to roll the dice, is less so. But D&D and CRPGs based on it at least still make positioning and area effects important, as well as partial-save and no-save abilities to minimize the "wow I just wasted my turn on that spell/attack, this sucks" effect.

What you're describing sounds like games that have good combat, that also happen to be RPGs. The more pertinent question to my mind is whether their combat is improved by the RPG bits. Because personally I'm having a hard time thinking of many games where having a big ass skill tree really made the game more enjoyable. Particularly games with some level of direct character control.


ME3 did a good job of not feeling that way I feel. The threat ramped up properly - you faced cannibals on earth, clustered Cerberus mooks on Mars, Husks on Palaven's moon etc., and by the time you were done with all that you had a germ of a build together to begin taking on things like Brutes and Marauders.

ME2 though was a pain. I never felt like I was actually playing the game until I did a NG+ because you were so helpless against certain defenses without the right guns and abilities. Without Kasumi's DLC, it took you so long to replace that godawful Shuriken that playing a caster was a royal PITA.

My central contention is that character builds etc don't make a shooter better. All they serve to do is lock me out of fun stuff I might be doing, or, worse, decrease the quality of the gameplay so a progression system can be attached to it. Crysis for instance does this exactly right; you get 100% of your suit abilities within about four minutes of gameplay, and there's nary an accuracy upgrade in sight. There's some progression of weapons, but for the most part they aren't so much better guns as guns that provide different options, and which can be switched between with a good deal of freedom.

[Domochevsky]

...
They weren't bad, just supremely unbalanced and wonky. A well placed Lift could end an entire fight (even lifting Armatures/Colossi at higher levels), but if you messed up with your power placement the cooldown was so long that you didn't feel like a caster at all. And your one damaging ability (Warp) was terrible in that game, and only slightly less terrible in ME2. ME3 was really where they finally got the combat right.

Speaking of... I recommend doing a Biotics-Only run with modified config files (no cooldown, specifically) in ME1. Quite a blast. I didn't shoot a single bullet. :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

What you're describing sounds like games that have good combat, that also happen to be RPGs.

I guess I'm not really understanding what the difference is supposed to be. Are you saying these games didn't have RPG combat because they weren't turn-based menu-driven snoozefests?



My central contention is that character builds etc don't make a shooter better. All they serve to do is lock me out of fun stuff I might be doing, or, worse, decrease the quality of the gameplay so a progression system can be attached to it.

I think we actually agree on this point, and this is again why I hate "accuracy stats." If I have something in my sights and I pull the trigger it should get hit; it sounds like we have an accord here. And there shouldn't be a "gun skill" that needs to be leveled before I can play the shooter part of the game properly, my aim should correlate to my skill 100% from the very beginning.

Thing is, Bioware realized that in ME1, changed it for ME2, and kept the change in ME3. When you level in ME2/ME3, you aren't improving your gun skill, you're improving other aspects of your character - the speed and damage of your powers, the effectiveness and capacity of your grenades/ammo mods. and the durability/duration of your defenses. That to me is perfectly acceptable. If you're a skilled shooter player, you can get by without any of that, just like if you're really skilled in Call of Duty you can run around with no grenades perpetually half-a-heartbeat from death and still win. But given that the threats you are facing are supernatural, it stands to reason that you can have supernatural (or extraordinary) abilities of your own to counter them properly, and it further stands to reason that those abiltiies would need to be improved.

Now, where ME2 was rough was with enemy protections. Having the wrong power for a defense basically made that power useless, and even guns without the right ammo mod would take a long time. And on higher difficulty levels, every enemy had at least one layer. So you really felt the pain of starting out with an incomplete build because there were so few points to go to the powers you needed. Adepts in particular got screwed over; their powers tended to only work on totally unprotected enemies, who were moments away from death anyway. The only way to avoid this was to tough it out, or drop down to a lower difficulty, which went too far in the other direction and removed the challenge. The devs admitted they went overboard; which brings us to ME3.

As I said in my last post, ME3 had a much smoother difficulty curve. Even on higher difficulties, shielded enemies tended to be one or two in the entire pack starting out. Moreover, clever adepts could set up combos on their unprotected allies, using the blast radius to soften up protected targets and strip their shields/armor, which created a much-needed domino effect. It added a new level of depth and strategy to the combat without actually making it easier. (Indeed, new enemy tactics like grenades, smoke bombs and buffing allies added even more challenge than the hide/spam combat drone/warp/rush cover tactics of ME2.

So you ended up feeling the talent crunch a lot less there. Shooter skill was emphasized even more, and the game was finally robust enough for them to add a (wildly successful) multiplayer mode.


Speaking of... I recommend doing a Biotics-Only run with modified config files (no cooldown, specifically) in ME1. Quite a blast. I didn't shoot a single bullet. :smallbiggrin:

You know, I just bought the Steam versions of ME1 and ME2 on sale the other day - this would help me get through the slog of ME1 again. I think I'll try it. Thanks!

[The Rose Dragon]

Quick note: adepts don't have to be clever to strip shields from protected enemies in Mass Effect 3. Warp + Throw works on everything just fine, even if other combinations, like Singularity + Warp or Pull + Throw, are more efficient for unshielded enemies.

[Mordokai]

They weren't bad, just supremely unbalanced and wonky. A well placed Lift could end an entire fight (even lifting Armatures/Colossi at higher levels), but if you messed up with your power placement the cooldown was so long that you didn't feel like a caster at all. And your one damaging ability (Warp) was terrible in that game, and only slightly less terrible in ME2. ME3 was really where they finally got the combat right.

Oh yeah, I remember that. Lift made the fight with krogan battlemaster easy, where I had really tough time with him on my infiltrator play-through. And it was always funny watching colossi floating around like so much rag-doll :smallbiggrin: And I agree about Warp as well. It was pretty useless.

So I guess I see your point. The third game got the best combat system, I agree, though personally I wasn't too displeased with the second one as well, though it being my first game in the trilogy may have something to do with it.

[Psyren]

Quick note: adepts don't have to be clever to strip shields from protected enemies in Mass Effect 3. Warp + Throw works on everything just fine, even if other combinations, like Singularity + Warp or Pull + Throw, are more efficient for unshielded enemies.

It does, but there's still strategy involved. Warp/Throw requires two dodgeable projectiles for instance, and few things can pick off a cluster of unshielded enemies as well as a singularity as you noted. Since skill points are limited starting out (unless you import anyway), there are multiple paths by which Shepard can succeed. Whereas in ME2, an Adept-Shep that focuses on Singularity instead of Warp at the beginning is going to have a much rougher time, and even the one with Warp won't be too happy if he runs into a shielded foe. There your solutions are to rely on your guns (unsatisfying), turn down the difficulty (unsatisfying), or grit your teeth and use your powers (slow.)

[The Rose Dragon]

(unless you import anyway)

Why would I ever not import ever?

[Psyren]

Why would I ever not import ever?

You would, but they have to design the game with the assumption that some people didn't/couldn't. This was particularly the case for PS3/WiiU players (especially before Trilogy dropped.)

[warty goblin]

I guess I'm not really understanding what the difference is supposed to be. Are you saying these games didn't have RPG combat because they weren't turn-based menu-driven snoozefests?

Not quite. I'm asking whether those games have good combat because of the RPG elements - aka the leveling, etc, or because the combat was enjoyable irrespective of any attached skill trees. It's been my experience that in most games, if combat is fun, it's because the basic interactions of are fun. The leveling generally is just sort of... there.




I think we actually agree on this point, and this is again why I hate "accuracy stats." If I have something in my sights and I pull the trigger it should get hit; it sounds like we have an accord here. And there shouldn't be a "gun skill" that needs to be leveled before I can play the shooter part of the game properly, my aim should correlate to my skill 100% from the very beginning.
This is why Borderlands 2 is an actually good game, while Borderland 1 really is not. The logic that goes into making an algorithm to create loads of different guns, then essentially locking the player out of a lot of them escapes me.


Thing is, Bioware realized that in ME1, changed it for ME2, and kept the change in ME3. When you level in ME2/ME3, you aren't improving your gun skill, you're improving other aspects of your character - the speed and damage of your powers, the effectiveness and capacity of your grenades/ammo mods. and the durability/duration of your defenses. That to me is perfectly acceptable. If you're a skilled shooter player, you can get by without any of that, just like if you're really skilled in Call of Duty you can run around with no grenades perpetually half-a-heartbeat from death and still win. But given that the threats you are facing are supernatural, it stands to reason that you can have supernatural (or extraordinary) abilities of your own to counter them properly, and it further stands to reason that those abiltiies would need to be improved.
I can kinda see the logic here. Games tend to escalate, and if you're using powers, there needs to be a way to escalate those. Guns are easy, just give the player a bigger gun and they're good to go. Although it still seems like it could run into the inverted difficulty common to a lot of RPGs, which really misses one the best part about shooters; that by the late game you need to actually play better.

I can't really speak to ME 2 and 3 in particular though. I bailed out on 2 when I realized exactly how terrible the writing was, which occurred maybe four hours in. Three I skipped entirely. at all. Partly this is because as I said, I thought ME 1 wrapped up quite nicely, without any real need for expansion.

[Zevox]

(Lest we forget, there was and in fact still is a time when "true RPG combat" meant selecting options off a menu, watching a brief cutscene, waiting for awhile, then repeating. Scintillating!)
When done well, very much so, yes. Hell, even when done only mediocre, it's better than ME1's combat. :smalltongue:

[Forum Explorer]

I had a much easier time hitting targets in Mass Effect 2 and 3. For some reason, I missed way more than I'm used to in Mass Effect 1. Oh... story.... oops.

I felt far more of a connection to characters, Tali in particular, in 2 rather than the original. Unfortunately, when playing 3 I was doing the typical paragon path when I suddenly, unexpectedly and irrevocably ended up on a romance path with a dumb Asari rather than Tali. A certain Turian stole my woman and from that point on I was fairly unengaged with the story.

Very poor design, that.

Now how did you manage that? :smallconfused:


I'm confused anybody thinks ME1's combat was good. It was a completely below average cover shooter. What I played of ME 2 ascended to the heady reaches of mostly average.

Yes ME1's combat was poor. But I wish they didn't drop the vehicle sections.

[Mordokai]

Yes ME1's combat was poor. But I wish they didn't drop the vehicle sections.

I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but I liked Mako vastly more than I did Hammerhead. At least the damn thing had some staying power and I never found handling it that much of a problem as some people complained.

But I still think that the third game perhaps did the best with removing vehicles all together.

[HamHam]

The Council themselves though? They thank you for your heroism, and speak very broad terms about the future, but never say anything to indicate they now believe you about the Reapers. Heck, they have no lines of dialogue after Shepard brings the Reapers up again - only Anderson or Udina do.

Except half the time the Council is now Earth's puppet.

This is one of the biggest fundamental flaws of the series. The whole "we don't believe Shepard" arc was played out and finished in the first game. Nullifying that and then continuing to beat a dead horse was horrible writing. And it didn't need to be there.

[Triscuitable]

I think some of the gameplay mechanics of the first game did a better job of making the setting feel futuristic and unique where as the later games had some aspects that felt much more gamey. There were improvements as well from a mechanical standpoint but most of them were either irrelevant to the feel of the story or negatively affected it.

"The combat felt futuristic" is an odd way to interpret it. I hated the combat in the first Mass Effect, and I feel the third has some of the best co-op out there because of how good the combat is.


Recruiting a team that could defeat the Reapers was the main narrative of Mass Effect 2.

Nailed it.


Doesn't make it any less lazy from where I'm standing. Hell, I'm sure that if Tali and Garrus weren't fan favorites, they would be similarly guest starring in various quests rather than being full fledged crew members.

This is the most obvious answer, but you also don't seem to realize that the other members left to prepare for the invasion and help others do the same.


I don't think ME was ever intended to be a one off game. I do believe(with significant back up from the developers) that the rest of the trilogy wasn't planned out at all, which is essentially the same thing. The fact that the story team was not consistent only made things worse.

Does this make any of these games (or their stories) bad? No, it just makes them inconsistent.

Frankly, I don't see why people can't just be happy that the series was such a strong trilogy. It had some serious issues, no doubt, but fans got plenty of closure. If you're going to continue to complain (and this goes out to everyone), why bother?


I really really REALLY wished they kept combat from ME1 more-or-less the same. I still can't get over how they turned a completely unique, fast-paced, and fun combat system into a crawl-fest where whoever peeks out of cover first bites the bullet.

You're mistaken. Mass Effect 2 and 3 play nothing like that.

Source: 350+ hours in Mass Effect 3, most of it in the combat-centric co-op.


I'm confused anybody thinks ME1's combat was good. It was a completely below average cover shooter. What I played of ME 2 ascended to the heady reaches of mostly average.

Mass Effect's combat was awful, Mass Effect 2's is average, and Mass Effect 3's actually feels like a third-person sci-fi shooter.


So pretty much true to RPG combat in other words.

In a third-person shooter, random chance shouldn't interfere when the actual variables that should be present are next to nil. It should all come down to skill and preparation.


Quick note: adepts don't have to be clever to strip shields from protected enemies in Mass Effect 3. Warp + Throw works on everything just fine, even if other combinations, like Singularity + Warp or Pull + Throw, are more efficient for unshielded enemies.

Once you step into Gold and Platinum, you'll need the Acolyte for shield-stripping, as the shieldgate and shield resistance towards biotics is simply too big.



This is why Borderlands 2 is an actually good game, while Borderland 1 really is not. The logic that goes into making an algorithm to create loads of different guns, then essentially locking the player out of a lot of them escapes me.

Borderlands is a fine game, and so is 2. They're certainly flawed, but does an issue like that really invalidate the entire game?

Okay, now I'm up to speed.

[Zevox]

Except half the time the Council is now Earth's puppet.

This is one of the biggest fundamental flaws of the series. The whole "we don't believe Shepard" arc was played out and finished in the first game. Nullifying that and then continuing to beat a dead horse was horrible writing. And it didn't need to be there.
Not really. Now, allowing the player to kill the Council but then doing absolutely nothing with that in the future and retconning away Earth controlling the new Council was poor writing. But that's kind of the problem with Bioware's "give the player all the choices we can think of" style when put into an ongoing, not 100% pre-planned story - they shoot themselves in the foot sometimes by giving the player a choice that they really shouldn't have.

[HamHam]

Not really. Now, allowing the player to kill the Council but then doing absolutely nothing with that in the future and retconning away Earth controlling the new Council was poor writing. But that's kind of the problem with Bioware's "give the player all the choices we can think of" style when put into an ongoing, not 100% pre-planned story - they shoot themselves in the foot sometimes by giving the player a choice that they really shouldn't have.

Yeah really. We already did this plot in the first game. Doing it again is stupid. You can't end on that speech and then go "whoops time skip and... everyone just forgot about all that stuff!". You are pretty much betraying your own set up before the game even starts.

[The Rose Dragon]

Once you step into Gold and Platinum, you'll need the Acolyte for shield-stripping, as the shieldgate and shield resistance towards biotics is simply too big.

Well, first, I was thinking about single player, since you can't pull of all those combos in multiplayer. Second, I have finished entire matches in Platinum without firing a single shot as a human adept or an N7 Fury, I'm tempted to say the resistance is actually irrelevant unless part of your objective for the wave is destroying an Atlas or Geth Prime.

[Avilan the Grey]

I really really REALLY wished they kept combat from ME1 more-or-less the same. I still can't get over how they turned a completely unique, fast-paced, and fun combat system into a crawl-fest where whoever peeks out of cover first bites the bullet.

Combat in ME1 was awful; it was "shooter", but with dice rolls. Also the combat mechanics themselves were far more primitive; when going back from ME2 to ME1 I had to force myself to run-and-gun (like in Doom) instead of fighting tactially, since it is much easier if you do.

FO3 / NV is also FPS with Dice Rolls, but somehow it flows better. Also, VATS helps util you get your skill up.

As for Trilogy: Yes, the trilogy was planned, but not plotted, just like a lot of trilogies (Tolkien rewrote tons of stuff. So did Lucas).
The change in writers didn't help, of course.

Regarding wehicles, the Mako was fun, when driven on the story based planets. I think the big problem didn't come from having to drive around but from two related issues:

1. The planets not part of the main story had way too dramatic mountains, which made driving horribad.

2. The fact that you had to bring a tech expert with you everywhere if you wanted any loot, which is the reason I barely used Tali in ME2 and ME3: I was tired of having to either bring her, or go through a full return to the normandy and then back again circle to change to her after combat.
(If they had only done a "Request new squad member" icon on the Mako like on the shuttle in ME2, that would have been great).

[The Rose Dragon]

You can also use Garrus and Kaidan to open locked stuff for you. Assuming you aren't playing a tech-based character to begin with.

[Avilan the Grey]

You can also use Garrus and Kaidan to open locked stuff for you. Assuming you aren't playing a tech-based character to begin with.

Well yes, but if you want to get the hardest stuff you really have to buff unlocking and Tali starts with twice as high scores as the other two, AFAIR.

[The Rose Dragon]

Well yes, but if you want to get the hardest stuff you really have to buff unlocking and Tali starts with twice as high scores as the other two, AFAIR.

Considering that there is no reason to put points into anything else for someone who isn't Wrex (who gets Immunity, Barrier, and a barrier, and can be turned into a walking tank nearly as good as any Shepard (except Sentinels, who are horrible at survivability)), and the hard stuff doesn't come until you have enough points to put in the skills.

On the other hand, observe the evolution of unlocking minigames: the first game requires both ranks in certain skills and gets harder in time. The second game doesn't require any skills, and it never gets more difficult. The third game just doesn't have them.

[Anterean]

I'm probably going to get crucified for this, but I liked Mako vastly more than I did Hammerhead. At least the damn thing had some staying power and I never found handling it that much of a problem as some people complained.


I completely agree with this, what is the point of an "Infantry fighting vehicle" that burst into flame if you use it run over an opponent with it ?

[The Rose Dragon]

I completely agree with this, what is the point of an "Infantry fighting vehicle" that burst into flame if you use it run over an opponent with it ?

The Hammerhead doesn't burst into flames until it is hit by at least four rockets, and never because you ran into someone. My favorite tactic with colossi is just ramming into them, over and over, until they fall into acid.

Also, Hammerhead is capable of self-healing, unlike the Mako, which can only veeeery slowly recover its shields unless you spend omnigel. Fortunately, the enemies are just horrible at targeting in the first game, so that only happens in the run to the Conduit (Conduit, Collectors, Catalyst, Crucible, Citadel... What is with Bioware and c-words?) or when you fall from some great height and manage to damage the front left wheel.

[Triscuitable]

Well, first, I was thinking about single player, since you can't pull of all those combos in multiplayer. Second, I have finished entire matches in Platinum without firing a single shot as a human adept or an N7 Fury, I'm tempted to say the resistance is actually irrelevant unless part of your objective for the wave is destroying an Atlas or Geth Prime.

I find that extremely hard to believe. Also, you can pull of combos like that in the campaign.

[The Rose Dragon]

Also, you can pull of combos like that in the campaign.

Not with a single adept, who can't get all four of Singularity, Warp, Throw and Pull, on account of being limited to three powers at once. Though multiplayer actually allows Singularity to prime shielded enemies as well, so you have less need for all of those.

[Thrawn183]

Now how did you manage that? :smallconfused:

I was just talking to everyone and doing all the paragon path options. I seriously ended up on the romance path with Liara before the story even got to Tali. I couldn't figure out a way to switch paths.

Hilariously, something similar happened with the ending. I just walked into the light because that's where I thought I would get to make my decision. Suddenly I'm watching the ending cutscene!

[Mordokai]

I was just talking to everyone and doing all the paragon path options. I seriously ended up on the romance path with Liara before the story even got to Tali. I couldn't figure out a way to switch paths.

You do know it was pretty obvious that choice had nothing to do with paragon or renegade paths?

[The Rose Dragon]

I was just talking to everyone and doing all the paragon path options.

If you haven't locked into a romance yet, Liara's lock in conversation is one of the earliest, and you can lock in to her romance accidentally by choosing the upper option. The important thing to remember is that not all upper options are Paragon, and not all lower options are Renegade, and choose accordingly.

[Zevox]

Yeah really. We already did this plot in the first game. Doing it again is stupid. You can't end on that speech and then go "whoops time skip and... everyone just forgot about all that stuff!". You are pretty much betraying your own set up before the game even starts.
You seem to be under the impression that the speech at the end of ME1 indicated that the Council now believes Shepard is right about the Reapers. As I already mentioned before, it does not. Keeping that plot point is not stupid, it's being consistent.

[HamHam]

You seem to be under the impression that the speech at the end of ME1 indicated that the Council now believes Shepard is right about the Reapers. As I already mentioned before, it does not. Keeping that plot point is not stupid, it's being consistent.

It does. It sets a tone.

[Tavar]

You seem to be under the impression that the speech at the end of ME1 indicated that the Council now believes Shepard is right about the Reapers. As I already mentioned before, it does not. Keeping that plot point is not stupid, it's being consistent.

Possibly. Of course, the fact that, as it turns out, they did believe, but they wouldn't tell you that because, I don't know, doing that would make them look competent?

Though, the manner in which they couldn't find some of the proof does lead to a pretty funny conclusion. Namely, while being superior in many ways, the Protheans did lack one huge development: no one in their cycle apparently used ROM, only RAM.