Mass Effect Thoughts

[Forum Explorer]

I agreed with...the first two sentences of your post.

The second game hinged on the player buying "now you have to work for a group which was a minor, and completely horrific villain in the first game." That was a pretty big ask. Unfortunately, Bioware, as it sometimes does, wound up less trying to sell it and more demanding you swallow it whole. And the whole Cerberus angle was, from the perspective of ME2 being a self-contained game, completely gratuitous: they could have just not handed the Council an idiot ball, cut out the whole "you nearly died," and had you going on missions under the direction of the Council. Easier in every way to write, nothing lost except someone's desire to crow "Ha ha you got suckered...don't give me that, you did not see it coming before my super-cool Illusive Man ever opened his mouth!" (Flashbacks to Throne of Bhaal here.)

I can mostly agree with that. I mean, all they really need is a justification for you to go through a timeskip and than the Cerberus stuff can be dropped entirely and basically nothing needs to be changed. If you don't have a timeskip then you do actually need to change quite a few things.

The third game could have been handled in a lot of ways. I did think it did a good job of making your earlier-game Paragon or Renegade decisions matter: Wrex or Wreav, the Rachni being free or the Rachni being de facto biological robots for the Reapers. But, ultimately, it hinged on three premises that didn't work:
1) You were suckered by Cerberus, and now Cerberus was able to take the role of an enemy you could talk to throughout the game--with Tim outright getting to chide you and leave you unable to do anything but sputter, even while his arguments were, in the eyes of everyone but whoever was writing him, laughably weak.
2) "Conflict between organic and synthetic life is inevitable as long as both exist."
3) At the end, you're dumped at: There's a giant mechanical genie that will grant you one of three wishes. Don't ask any questions.


None of those were necessary until Mass Effect 3 threw them at the player out of nowhere. Premises 1 and 2 could and should have simply been dropped, unmourned except by whoever at Bioware wanted to go "Muahaha I'm so much cleverer than you!" at the PC. That just leaves 3, the question of how to defeat the Reapers. And "The Reapers are ridiculously more than a match for the entire galaxy" was also something they only threw at you suddenly in Mass Effect 3.

They could have gone from Mass Effect 1 to "you can defeat the Reapers conventionally but only with a united galaxy." They could have gone to "you need to build this superweapon, which will destroy the Reapers, and only the Reapers." They could have...

They never had to do the mechanical genie with one of three wishes. It was 100% because they wanted to, because they thought it was actually clever.

1) I honestly didn't get the impression that TLM was supposed to have strong arguments. I thought that he and Cerberus as a whole were included more so that people wouldn't be asking 'what happened with TLM and Cerberus during the Reaper invasion?' But they could've been cut out entirely, and you likely would've been better off for doing so because then you would have more time to develop the Reapers.

2) I really only got that from the Star Child conversation. Cut out that conversation entirely and just skip to an ending and I'd have never guessed that was a premise of the game. I mean, the Geth and EDI/Joker romance were pretty much proving the opposite of that claim.

3) Sure. I can agree that they handled the Crucible poorly. Frig, my whole post above was my attempt to describe what I consider a Crucible handled well.


I feel like you are ascribing a level of malevolence to a writer that I doubt was present. It felt more like the writer didn't have any clue how to write the Reapers and so went back to basic motivations.

Yes, but you can DO that. You can write a first installment that is self-contained, and still follow up on it.

Classic example? The Star Wars Original Trilogy. They have some hanging threads around (like Luke and Leia's kiss in TESB, before it was established in the series bible that they were siblings), but ANH is a self-contained story... it could end there... and then ESB and ROTJ built on those.

ME1 was NOT self-contained, because it ended with the pending threat of Reapers hanging out there, begging for a sequel. It was open-ended. Which CAN be fine... we understand when things don't get a sequel... but once you start saying "Ok, I have my start, I want to write a finish to it" you have to know where you've been, and where you're going, and ME 2 & 3 don't show any sign of having done that.

I slightly disagree about ME2. It wasn't the smoothest transition from ME1, but it did handle it and everything that happened in ME2 built up to a satisfying conclusion to ME2.

ME3 doesn't really lead from ME2 though. There really should have been a different ME3 with the ME3 we got being ME4. Basically, ME2 built tension and gave some tantalizing hints about the Reaper's motivation. It showed that the galaxy was still pretty damn unprepared for the Reapers and that the Reapers were still active in the galaxy with the ability to possess people from a distance. But it didn't set the story up to move into the ending.

Basically, after ME2 was finished they should've realized that ME3 shouldn't conclude the story. They still needed more rising action. Well, the ME3 we got anyways. I maintain you could write an ME3 that ended the trilogy. Afterall look at Star Wars, ROTJ doesn't build on ESB all that much. Or perhaps I should say, it doesn't build on most of ESB that much. The central conflict between Vader and Luke is all around the reveal at the very end of ESB. While the wider conflict doesn't really need anything from ESB. Though I suppose the romance between Han and Leia does. Arguably. I feel it more starts and ends in ESB with it being more of taken as a fact in ROTJ.

Comparatively, ME3 could've been built around the twist at the end of ME2, that Reapers were made from the people they harvest. Instead, I don't think it's mentioned at all. But more importantly, it needed both a tighter focus (IE, either make Cerberus your ally still or cut them out of the story entirely), and a better clarity to your actions. If you spend all game building a conventional military, than people will expect a conventional victory from said military.

[Forum Explorer]

IDK how sustainable having billions of intelligent husks suddenly roaming the very limited galaxy would be, especially since all those husks would have been from thousands of cycles over trillions of years. Other then that though, i'd play that game.

I don't know how much of a 'good' ending the last one is either. But hey, that just makes it more fun. It's an ending to be sure and I think it'd create an interesting galaxy.

[Dienekes]

Comparatively, ME3 could've been built around the twist at the end of ME2, that Reapers were made from the people they harvest. Instead, I don't think it's mentioned at all. But more importantly, it needed both a tighter focus (IE, either make Cerberus your ally still or cut them out of the story entirely), and a better clarity to your actions. If you spend all game building a conventional military, than people will expect a conventional victory from said military.

honestly, the only thing the ME2 reveal does is explain why the Reapers tactics are the way they are.

When every Reaper is a civilization and the whole point of the Reaping is to preserve those civilizations then of course they will develop their strategy along a path that means to as close to 0 deaths as possible. Even when the entire force of the galaxy united against them still doesn’t have a chance of victory.

I just don’t think the game ever pointed this out. And honestly I might be giving the writers too much credit for that.

[factotum]

Well the first game was self-contained. It didn't need anything else.

Unlike everyone else, I'm going to have to disagree here. The first game set up a problem: we have immortal AI Reapers sitting in deep space, waiting to invade the galaxy and destroy all organic life. The actions Shepard took at the end of that game delayed the problem, it didn't get rid of it entirely. It seems to me that the plot of the first game was deliberately setting everything up for some sort of detective story--you have Shepard's Prothean knowledge from the pylon and Liara, an expert on Protheans who can help him interpret it; Shepard himself is a Spectre, giving him freedom to travel where he wants and do more or less anything to try and find a solution to the problem. It's a near perfect setup--which they then press the big red RESET button on at the beginning of ME2.

[Narkis]

Unlike everyone else, I'm going to have to disagree here.

ME1 was NOT self-contained, because it ended with the pending threat of Reapers hanging out there, begging for a sequel.

Looks like you failed a perception check there factotum.

[Morty]

Yes, Mass Effect 1 was obviously made to allow for a continuation, though whether or not a continuation was planned, strictly speaking, is anyone's guess.

As far as ME2 goes, I feel like the goal was to make it a new story rather than a direct continuation of the previous one... except the method ended up really contrived. They wanted to keep Shepard as the protagonist, but also throw them in a different setting - after the immediate aftermath of the battle for the Citadel, mingling with the galaxy's seedy underbelly and not working for the Council or the Alliance anymore.

I don't know how this might have worked without the "death" and resurrection or Cerberus. But I do think a change of scenery of some sort in a sequel is necessary.

[factotum]

I don't know how this might have worked without the "death" and resurrection or Cerberus. But I do think a change of scenery of some sort in a sequel is necessary.

You've literally got an entire galaxy to play with, I don't think varied scenery is an issue.

[GloatingSwine]

1) I honestly didn't get the impression that TLM was supposed to have strong arguments. I thought that he and Cerberus as a whole were included more so that people wouldn't be asking 'what happened with TLM and Cerberus during the Reaper invasion?' But they could've been cut out entirely, and you likely would've been better off for doing so because then you would have more time to develop the Reapers.

The way the scenes are framed, you're supposed to think he does.

Although there are myriad logical flaws with what he's saying, nothing the player is allowed to mention will ever address them, and he basically always gets the last word.

The writer wants you to think he's super in control and clever, and so only gives you completely milquetoast objections to voice.

This is, sadly, because we have to admit that Irenicus was a fluke and Bioware are not actually good at villains. Darth Chinless was a chump who only ever got to win because of cutscenes, and Loghain was basically a "Drat! Foiled Again" saturday morning cartoon villain who kept trying ineffectual plots against you.

honestly, the only thing the ME2 reveal does is explain why the Reapers tactics are the way they are.

When every Reaper is a civilization and the whole point of the Reaping is to preserve those civilizations then of course they will develop their strategy along a path that means to as close to 0 deaths as possible. Even when the entire force of the galaxy united against them still doesn’t have a chance of victory.

But what ME2 actually shows is that a Reaper can be built with a tiny fraction of a civilisation, just Earth's outlying colonies were enough to get one up and running, let alone the many billions on Earth itself and any other core worlds that the Collectors could never have hoped to assault. So that actually doesn't explain that really. If they needed a whole civilisation, they could never have even started trying.

[Dienekes]

But what ME2 actually shows is that a Reaper can be built with a tiny fraction of a civilisation, just Earth's outlying colonies were enough to get one up and running, let alone the many billions on Earth itself and any other core worlds that the Collectors could never have hoped to assault. So that actually doesn't explain that really. If they needed a whole civilisation, they could never have even started trying.

I don't think what we saw constitutes as "up and running." They depopulated a lot of settlements and barely got half a skeleton thingamabob that could be killed with small arms fire. That is a tiny fraction of a reaper. I also didn't say it took the entire population, just that it is a civilization. All the humans they could funnel into Human-Reaper baby the more complete the Reaper is. And if a single Reaper is destroyed then they lose all the lives collected inside of it. That follows that their strategy would be designed around nullifying the possibility that they'd lose a single Reaper, even if pound for pound they can still conquer the galaxy by rushing it.

[Kish]

The way the scenes are framed, you're supposed to think he does.

Although there are myriad logical flaws with what he's saying, nothing the player is allowed to mention will ever address them, and he basically always gets the last word.

The writer wants you to think he's super in control and clever, and so only gives you completely milquetoast objections to voice.

Yes, this. If Tim actually had compelling arguments I wouldn't complain. The problem is that what's on the page is, instead, "I'm building a device to control the Reapers and thus you are opposing Earth's savior!" "CONTROL THE REAPERS? You're insane!" Repeat ad nauseum. It's like in Throne of Bhaal, where Mellissan all but tells you "I'm a villain!" and you're left going, "Hurr durr, it sure is a pity Melissan's noble intentions keep getting people killed," followed by an NPC outright telling you that what Melissan's been doing is a "brilliant ruse."

[Narkis]

This is, sadly, because we have to admit that Irenicus was a fluke and Bioware are not actually good at villains. Darth Chinless was a chump who only ever got to win because of cutscenes, and Loghain was basically a "Drat! Foiled Again" saturday morning cartoon villain who kept trying ineffectual plots against you.

I wouldn't go that far. Sarevok also worked for what he was, Saren and Sovereign were pretty damn good, and Jade Empire had one of the best villains among cRPGs ever. The failures of ME2's and 3's writer are his alone, Bioware becoming a shadow of their former selves after the EA acquisition notwithstanding.

[factotum]

Yes, this. If Tim actually had compelling arguments I wouldn't complain. The problem is that what's on the page is, instead, "I'm building a device to control the Reapers and thus you are opposing Earth's savior!" "CONTROL THE REAPERS? You're insane!" Repeat ad nauseum.

This is what annoyed me about the whole Cerberus thing in ME2. I didn't want to work for them--unlike the game's writers, I remembered what they were like in the first game--but I was never given that choice. Furthermore, every time I had a conversation in the game where the other person was saying "But you work for Cerberus now!" the writer hadn't been able to think of even a weak justification for that, so I couldn't say anything but something along the lines of "Yes, I am, so what?".

Then, in ME3 we're back to thinking Cerberus are the Devil incarnate, which just makes Shepard look like a complete moron for working for them throughout the previous game! I dunno, it seems at times that all three games were written by different people who had different ideas of how the plot should go and how the universe worked.

[Morty]

Then, in ME3 we're back to thinking Cerberus are the Devil incarnate, which just makes Shepard look like a complete moron for working for them throughout the previous game! I dunno, it seems at times that all three games were written by different people who had different ideas of how the plot should go and how the universe worked.

I think it's entirely possible that this was in fact the case. It's not exactly a shocking revelation. Talking about companies and writing teams as though they were some uniform entities, as players usually do, is dubious.

I wonder how ME2 would have worked if it'd had the same story, but with a new protagonist who's an up-and-coming Cerberus operative, unaware of the organization's true nature. It would remove a lot of awkward, shoehorned elements, but we wouldn't have a continuity and Shepard's familiarity with fan-favorite characters. Thus I'm not saying it'd be better, but it's interesting to think about.

Presumably, the final choice would still be to keep working for Cerberus or not, though it wouldn't be much more interesting. "Will you or won't you side with people who thought any part of the Pragia facility was a good idea" is still a pretty poor choice for a game to give.

[GloatingSwine]

Then, in ME3 we're back to thinking Cerberus are the Devil incarnate, which just makes Shepard look like a complete moron for working for them throughout the previous game! I dunno, it seems at times that all three games were written by different people who had different ideas of how the plot should go and how the universe worked.

And, of course, suddenly they have infinite resources despite literally every Cerberus project we ever see in ME1 and ME2 being a colossal screwup that blows up in their faces and gains them absolutely nothing.

But, of course, the writers insist that they're really a big deal and we never actually get to point this out to anyone and get them to recognise that we have done so.

By like the second or third time Shepard should have been replying with "rogue cell my impeccably toned cyber-ass, all your projects screw up in exactly the same way, every time, this is a failure of management, at least Saren was working for a competent evil overlord, I quit".

[factotum]

And, of course, suddenly they have infinite resources despite literally every Cerberus project we ever see in ME1 and ME2 being a colossal screwup that blows up in their faces and gains them absolutely nothing.

That ship already sailed in ME2, where this outlawed criminal organisation were able to build a bigger and better version of the Alliance's most advanced ship. Just think of the logistics of that for a second--it would be the real world equivalent of a terrorist organisation building a Gerald R. Ford class nuclear-powered supercarrier, or at the very least an Arleigh Burke class destroyer, only in either case they're making something that's actually better than the original. I shouldn't need to point out how ridiculous an idea that is, surely? Especially considering, as you rightly point out, Cerberus are *idiots*. I wouldn't trust the Illusive Man or any of his minions to build a functioning frying pan, much less a warship.

[Draconi Redfir]

wasn't Sheppard kind of forced / blackmailed into working for Cerberus? i thought Sheppard only did it because they literally brought him/her back from the dead and hung that over them like a giant "we OWN you!" sign 24/7.

[factotum]

They brought him back from the dead, yes. But at no point does anyone in Cerberus say "You owe us big time!"--they don't even need to deploy threats, because there's literally no way for Shepard to actually refuse to work with Cerberus in ME2. If they even gave you the option for him to refuse, and for TIM to then say, "Well, we brought you back from the dead, and I have a switch here that'll put you straight back down, are you sure you don't want to work with us?", thus making you working with them entirely under duress, then I'd be happier. I'd be happier still if you could actually give that reason to anyone who queries why you're with Cerberus.

Of course, that just then needs us to find some sort of justification for pretty much the entire crew of the Normandy from the first game being willing to work with an outlawed terrorist organisation, but hey, baby steps.

[GloatingSwine]

wasn't Sheppard kind of forced / blackmailed into working for Cerberus? i thought Sheppard only did it because they literally brought him/her back from the dead and hung that over them like a giant "we OWN you!" sign 24/7.

You'd think, but then the game is chock full of characters who consistently justify working for Cerberus and their goals, and it's clearly all framed as if agreeing with them is a valid option that the writers expected some of the audience to take.

[LibraryOgre]

wasn't Sheppard kind of forced / blackmailed into working for Cerberus? i thought Sheppard only did it because they literally brought him/her back from the dead and hung that over them like a giant "we OWN you!" sign 24/7.

That's what they used, but, really, Shepard could have said "Well, I didn't sign nothin'" and walked away.

I think the real carrot they were supposed to be giving you was "We are putting resources at your disposal to do this thing that you want to do. No one else is doing so." But, of course, once the Council re-instates you as a Specter, you're back to having resources again.

[Psyren]

Couple of tangential notes for this thread:

1) For those watching it, it looks like Star Trek Picard might be heading towards an "AI are inherently dangerous" sort of theme/message of its own.

2) On the Bioware front, sounds like they're planning to take a mulligan with Anthem - only time will tell if they pull off a No Man's Sky/FF14 style successful relaunch, or fail again and scrap the whole thing. Personally I'm hoping for the former, if only because that's the best way for us to also get more Mass Effect later on.

[Serenity]

Haven't watched the latest episode yet, so maybe something big changed, but as far as I've seen up to Episode 6, that's been the opinion of the antagonists, who probably orchestrated the major example of rogue AI that created the synthetic ban. The whole premise of the plot is about Picard protecting an android woman against the synthetic-hating villains, and I'd be very surprised if the plot developed to suggest that Picard has been doing the wrong thing the whole time, and that one of Trek's most beloved characters was an abomination of science.

[Dienekes]

Couple of tangential notes for this thread:

1) For those watching it, it looks like Star Trek Picard might be heading towards an "AI are inherently dangerous" sort of theme/message of its own.

2) On the Bioware front, sounds like they're planning to take a mulligan with Anthem - only time will tell if they pull off a No Man's Sky/FF14 style successful relaunch, or fail again and scrap the whole thing. Personally I'm hoping for the former, if only because that's the best way for us to also get more Mass Effect later on.

Alright, uh

1) Haven't watched Picard, but, huh? TNG was the most saccharinely uplifting of the Treks in that regard, carried entirely because Sir Patrick Stewart could sell those lines and make them sound good. Having them go that anything is inherently dangerous seems like a bit of a waste of his talent. That sort of stuff fits more with the Deep Space Nine style of Trek. Which, admittedly is my favorite, but I wouldn't have attached Jean-luc Picard to it.

2) Well good luck to them. But my hope remains the same, I wish they do well enough to keep the lights on while getting a thorough reminder that their wheelhouse is single player story focused RPGs and not that MMO style open world, grinding missions and collectible pick ups. Mostly because I'm selfish and I dislike those style of games while I really enjoy Dragon Age and Mass Effect, at least when either are done well.

[Anteros]

You'd think, but then the game is chock full of characters who consistently justify working for Cerberus and their goals, and it's clearly all framed as if agreeing with them is a valid option that the writers expected some of the audience to take.

Is it though? You basically spend the entire game subverting Cerberus operatives against their organization, and it's set up for you to give them a giant middle finger at the end.

The council is refusing to do anything about the greatest threat the galaxy has ever seen, and Cerberus is offering you complete control of your operations and basically unlimited funding and support. It makes perfect sense that Shepard would work with them until they hit a situation they can't agree on...which happens by the end of the game.

[Morty]

Whatever else might be said about it, I think ME2 has the best enemy variety in the series. We have the three merc bands, Geth and Collectors. Sometimes also mechs without organics and Klixen - those don't quite count as proper "factions", but they do spice things up. ME1... it's been a while, but I think it's mostly either Geth or generic humanoid opponents. ME3 just has Reapers and Cerberus for the most part, since Geth only really appear during the Rannoch questline. Andromeda has the Remnant robots, outcasts and Kett. Sometimes also the hostile Angara, but I think they just use the same models as the outcasts. So a little better than ME3.

[Tawmis]

I saw the Quest for Glory thread, which led me into the Gaming (Other) forum... and I saw this thread.

As an avid fan of everything Bioware... When it came to Mass Effect, you could not stop me from playing it. Mass Effect 1, I beat in about a week. Finding everything, doing every side mission, and even doing alternates to see how different things... ended up. Mass Effect 2, took about a week. Mass Effect 3, took about a week (and despite the popular dislike of Mass Effect 3 and the original ending, I didn't have any issues with it - I enjoyed it. Didn't see the need to "update" it to appease the fan outcry - but they did it - and it was good too).

Fast forward to Mass Effect: Andromeda.

As I said, as avid fan of everything Bioware... wait... this was EA. OK. Still. It was Mass Effect, it should be fine. So I pre-ordered, got the whole bit of collector's edition, as I'd done with the others.

So I had it since day 1.

So this came out March 21, 2017.

We're creeping up on the 3 year mark.

I've still not beat it.

Is it too difficult? No. Not at all.

Is it difficult to play? Yes, because it's difficult to get into.

Unlike ME1-3, there was something missing. I didn't feel the pull into the story like I did with the others. This felt... flat.

It didn't help that the first planet I went to explore on was Harval. This is a God awful planet.
It's dark. The big thing / building /structure in he middle of it - so you can't just cross back and forth.
It's so damn dark, that it became way to easy to run into a wall and tree and not even realize you're stuck.
And then the aliens on that planet?

I wanted to kill them all. They were horrible. No interest in saving them.

Finally got off that planet, and at the other one (with the sulfur springs, can't remember the name).

This planet at least is far more tolerable.

But the people? The quests? Uninteresting.

I pick up the game every so often - just because it's Mass Effect - and the completionist in me is screaming to beat it.

But it's painful.

It's like... I love opening doors to go outside. But this game is like opening the door to go outside; but slamming it shut on your own hand instead.

But.

One day.

God willing.

I will beat this game. No matter how much I suffer.

[factotum]

Is it though? You basically spend the entire game subverting Cerberus operatives against their organization, and it's set up for you to give them a giant middle finger at the end.

The council is refusing to do anything about the greatest threat the galaxy has ever seen, and Cerberus is offering you complete control of your operations and basically unlimited funding and support. It makes perfect sense that Shepard would work with them until they hit a situation they can't agree on...which happens by the end of the game.

It makes perfect sense for a *Renegade* Shepard to work with them, assuming everything else you said is correct--but I don't think it is. The Council had no problem reinstating Shepard as a Spectre when he returns from the dead, and Spectres already have unlimited funding and support to do anything they like--remember Saren from the first game? Cerberus is not necessary and is not even portrayed as being necessary.

Then, of course, Paragon Shep wouldn't touch them with a ten-light-year bargepole, which is where the whole "We're justified in working for Cerberus for reasons" falls down.

[Kish]

This is what annoyed me about the whole Cerberus thing in ME2. I didn't want to work for them--unlike the game's writers, I remembered what they were like in the first game--but I was never given that choice. Furthermore, every time I had a conversation in the game where the other person was saying "But you work for Cerberus now!" the writer hadn't been able to think of even a weak justification for that, so I couldn't say anything but something along the lines of "Yes, I am, so what?".

Then, in ME3 we're back to thinking Cerberus are the Devil incarnate, which just makes Shepard look like a complete moron for working for them throughout the previous game! I dunno, it seems at times that all three games were written by different people who had different ideas of how the plot should go and how the universe worked.

I would have been fine with "you work for them because they're the only people trying to take down the Reapers, and they're bad but not as bad as universal annihilation."

Okay, no, I wouldn't have, because handing the Council an idiot ball didn't make the storytelling better, but rather worse.

But in any event, if that was what they were going with, they should have stuck with it. Had that be what it was in Mass Effect 3, instead of suddenly having all the NPCs go "you were suckered by Cerberus," with no dialogue options to challenge that version of events, and Tim still getting to lecture you repeatedly.

But...again, this was all unnecessary. They could have kept nearly all of the missions all but unchanged, just by having Shepard working for the Council in ME2. Miranda Lawson becomes the new Council liaison, working directly for whoever you chose to be on the Council, and conspicuously not being an uncontradictable cheerleader for an organization everyone but her can see at a glance is evil; her conflict with Jack is based on her unquestioning patriotism and not on "evidence in front of me be damned, I refuse to accept that the organization that tortured you has any flaws!" And, just like that, it makes sense for everything you do in ME2 to build up to however you wind up fighting the Reapers in ME3.

And then there's the question of why Cerberus has unlimited funding, as other people have pointed out; "this corporation can do what the governments of the setting never could because it just can!" lacks a certain respect for plausibility.

[Anteros]

It makes perfect sense for a *Renegade* Shepard to work with them, assuming everything else you said is correct--but I don't think it is. The Council had no problem reinstating Shepard as a Spectre when he returns from the dead, and Spectres already have unlimited funding and support to do anything they like--remember Saren from the first game? Cerberus is not necessary and is not even portrayed as being necessary.

Then, of course, Paragon Shep wouldn't touch them with a ten-light-year bargepole, which is where the whole "We're justified in working for Cerberus for reasons" falls down.

The council that makes you pay for your own weapons and shoots you down literally every single time you ask them for any support. That council? Compared to Cerberus who is constantly feeding you intel, created a giant team of specialists including those loyal to Shepard over Cerberus, and the most sophisticated ship in the universe.

Also, Paragon Shep is all about giving people second chances and trying to redeem people. It's perfectly in character for him to take TIM at his word that the bad stuff you see in ME1 were accidents or mistakes. At least to the point of seeing for himself how they run things.

It''s Cerberus or nothing, because the council isn't willing to actually support you in anything but name.

[Morty]

I decided that being stuck at home is as good a time as any to replay Mass Effect, but I still can't decide if I want to play a female or male Shepard. They'll be a paragon engineer either way, so it's just a matter of who I'll romance. I've also decided I'll get some people killed during the suicide mission to see what happens.

[factotum]

I decided that being stuck at home is as good a time as any to replay Mass Effect, but I still can't decide if I want to play a female or male Shepard. They'll be a paragon engineer either way, so it's just a matter of who I'll romance. I've also decided I'll get some people killed during the suicide mission to see what happens.

Why don't you try to get *everyone* (including Shepard) killed during that mission and see what happens in ME3? (Yes, it is possible to do that--if everyone other than Shepard dies during the mission he fails to get back aboard the Normandy 2 at the end).