Ryder too soft

Yes, you've repeatedly made your point. So now...

You know why they didn't react ? Because they didn't know what to do, because everything go wrong, because they lost their leaders. They been waiting for Ark's, for Pathfinders, for someone who will show them the way. Tann just take advantage of this and he make false promises to Krogan, after mutiny finished he lied again... well, you know the story.
But now there is a Pathfinder. I am not saying that he should start to make cleaning minute after he arrived, but after establish the first colony in EOS, people start to trust him. Even Addison see that now there is a hope, cause there is a right person on the right place. From that moment it depends on him. Cause it's about people lives, cause there are Kett, cause there are a lot of problems which need to be resolved. So from now on Tann should cooperate, or be replaced. It's simple as that. I don't understand where you see the problem.

And this neatly sums up why Andromeda was never going to be good enough for anyone.

Seriously, it's 5 years since ME3 isn't it time to move on and let it go and allow bioware to try something new? The OT still exist to be played if you miss it that much.

Perhaps you didn't notice - most members of the team were involved in other projects/tasks. As the Pathfinder, Ryder takes charge of Pathfinder missions, but the crew is pretty busy pursuing their own goals. This isn't a military organization where these people are owned 24x7. Some of them don't even get paid - they're pretty much volunteers.


Funny you should mention that. During the course of the game, Ryder managed to win the trust and respect of the (rightfully) very wary angarans.


Nope. The other Pathfinders - who were rescued by Ryder - teamed up to support Ryder's bid to take Meridian, in defiance of a direct order from Tann. Ryder had the only Tempest - I'm guessing the other Pathfinders got shuttles.


No, but then they never could. Organizations always have far more ideas than they could ever possibly bring to fruition.


It's good that you finally admitted that.

Ryder is an entirely different character, in a different role, with different responsibilities, in a different galaxy.

You can talk about wanting more choices, but BioWare made sure that all of the available options were appropriate for someone in Ryder's position.

So if you know what it takes to be one you probably could agree... it's easy to become leader but it takes time to be a good leader.
This is a group of "kids". Some "elder" pointed a finger on one of them and said "this is your leader now. Do as he/she says".
LOL
These "I haven't said dismist..." scenes in the meeting room nails is so perfectly.

I don't know, maybe it's just me, maybe I'm too old, maybe I have worked for too long in teams with "kids", have been responsible for kids (being "leader" and having "trainees", being "parent"), maybe I have too much "kids" around me... but I can so easily recognize my Andromeda crew in RL kids and that is what makes it so funny and interesting for me. This are KIDS, no leaders, Ryder needs to learn being one.

But as Vonuber said so perfectly:
This isn't about not being Mass Effect, this is about not being Shepard. People don't want something new, it has to be a Shepard clone.

I wouldn't say kids but more young adults. Excepting Drack of course. Cora most likely has the formal training but Ryder has the SAM. Anyway being a capable leader is not about how many persons you jettison out of the airlock. That is just proof of failed leadership.

It was there. My Shepard has no problem letting them die. But then again I blame the commander of the destiny for putting the destiny and council in harms way

Perhabs you want no clone, but I'm not certain if others share your opinion. And if you mean by freedom of choices that we should have some more "less friendly" answers then yes. I want them, too. See, we can agree.

Freedom of choices because of being an angel or asshole? Well... I agree. I want to hit Adisson in her tired face as much as I liked to hit Miranda in her genetically enhanced face. So much for your control chip, babe... I would love to throw Peebee out of the airlock as I did with Jacob, Zaeed and Miranda. I would love to tell Tann "fu.. you" like I could to TIM at the very first moment I met him. And beliefe me, Shep kills Kai Leng all the time on Thessia... So I would say I am ok with no freedom of choices anymore because in the OT this freedom of choice never was my freedom of choice although it obviously was ok for others. So I can't miss somethin I wasn't happy with.

There are no real choices in Mass Effect. The story is the same, the path is the same. The outcome is always the same - you'll get your ME3 ending.
I guess I can live with the fact that this is about a civil society (oh how I would love to give my taxman a "renegate" interrupt...) and not a military.

Slightly disagree.

There are real choices in ME. Small ones - You can kill Wrex, you can decide between Ash or Kaidan, you can kill Council,you can let your companions die just by not doing their loyalty quests in ME2/easiest way to get rid of Liam, but again no possible/ - Big ones - you can save the whole race - Krogans - or you can let them die. ME3 ending ? There is still life after Starchild - after Shep will make his choice - and it depends on you who will be still there - Geth, Quarians, Batarians, Rachni- or maybe none of them. Many choices my friend.
Civil society ? Agree. But Pathinder is a military. Alec, all other pathfinders. They did whatever was necessary. Many people strongly disagree with me about kicking off Tann from Nexus, because of who he is and what he did - but at the same time many of them easily forgive Asari Pathfinder making her choice. It's always about saving lives. If I have to sacrifice one to save many, I will do that. That's Pathfinder role.

can shepard say no to a quest? Added Ryder can say no to quest.

Slightly disagree:
You can decide between Ash and Kaidan? No - you HAVE to. You HAVE to decide wether or not to kill the council. Loyalty mission or not in ME2 to kill them at the end of the story doesn't help me to love my forced alliance with Cerberus, Jacob and Miranda any better.  I have no choice to say no and handle the collectors with my alliance buddies. This would be my "freedom of choice". Also all that choices - it's three games to one. If I let the rachni go in ME1 has no imidiate impact at all - in both cases the counsil yells at me (and I can't shoot them...). It's the same "meaningful" choice as with "Sleeping dragons" for example. It may just sound a bit more meaningful. Batarians gone without any choice at all.
Geth or Quarians? Both? Doesn't matter at all after Starbrat offers my the endings. Shallow choices my friend - but they do look nice at first.

Pathfinder is military? No. It just happens that some of them are ex-military. Two, to be exaclty. The human and the turian. And well, even our good old Alec was more of a scientist than military if you want to be correct. The N7 thing was just some kind of funny fanservice. Asari was a diplomat/matriarch, Salarian a politician/dalatrass.
So to me the role of a Pathfinder is more of exploration and finding vialble places for settlements. Not fighting against an aggressive race like the kett - but now they have to. For you the role of a Pathfinder is fighting and a bit of exploring if you find the time, at least that's my impression. Sorry if I got that wrong.
So let's just agree that we disagree, that I like the game and you don't.