Ryder too soft

Actually what I want to play is a bad-ass hero, like Shepard, like Chief, like Inquisitor, like Warden, Like Hawke, like my character in Skyrim, like my Revan in KOTOR, like any Jedi I've played in a plethora of games. like every MMO character I've created in EQ and WoW and Elder Scrolls Online, like....you get my drift.  I don't want to play a fumbling kid trying to fill a parent's shoes.  I play games to be the capable hero.  To me, that's why I play games.  That's what keeps me replaying them.  To me, Ryder is a weak character so she has little replay in there for me.

I'm not hung up on being a 'badass' but I would like for my Ryder to actually believe in the options I choose for them. What I mean is, in my current playthrough, my Ryder full on supported Sarissa's choice to sacrifice her Pathfinder for the intel she believed would give her people the best chance against the Kett. My Ryder agreed with her decision, and would have made the same choice. But when we encounter Sarissa again in Tann's office, my conversation choices did not reflect this at all. The best I could do was tell Sarissa that I hoped she learned from this, in a tone that suggested I only reluctantly supported her as Pathfinder. If I could have walked away without saying anything, I would have preferred that to what came out of Ryder's mouth.

I do get that you aren't going to get 100% dialogue agreement with your character in even the most well written game, but for Bioware to give you a choice and then not let your character express firm resolve in that choice feels really off. Why give us the decision to make at all, if they are going to force us to walk back on it in dialog later?

It would've been kind of crazy/stupid if you could though, because the game would never be able to realistically account for that outcome. You'd be stripped of Spectre status and be made an example of by the Alliance to maintain any kind of standing with the Council species. Needless to say that journey would be over. 

Thinking about this, there's one time where Shepard can off a politician, and that's in Thane's loyalty mission, but I thought that was stupid too. No way should someone be able to just straight up murder an elected official on the Citadel with absolutely zero consequences. Bailey might be a crooked cop, but not even he should be able to have the power to just make that go away.

I don't remember them ever using that language (CO, commander) in the game - you're carrying that over from the trilogy. The Ai is a civilian organization. The game isn't clear about reporting structure, but the only people who might be direct reports to Ryder are Cora and Liam. The services of the rest of the crew are either Nexus related (provided by Tann) or volunteers.


Origin also allows refunds.

But why the hell should EA hand Steam a chunk of their revenue? Steam offers nothing that EA doesn't also provide, and using their own software distribution probably makes it much easier for them to deal with localization and various legal issues internally. The only time they ever used Steam was before Origin was fully developed, and some people had a resistance to installing Origin.


Some of the choices provided in the trilogy ended up being very costly - and for what, really? The death of any character simply meant that BioWare had to provide replacements to fulfill the same role, and in the case of Kaidan/Ashley, they had a pretty much identical storyline for the remainder of the series. Wrex/Wreav, Original Council/New Council, Mordin/Wiks, Legion/GethVI, Jacob/Other guy, etc., and they wrote minor storylines for all of the squadmates who could have survived ME2 in ME3. It was a helluva lot of baggage to carry forward. A lot of optional content they had to provide - and even then, people were pissed that their ME2 LIs couldn't ride out ME3 on the Normandy.

I also think that some people have forgotten all of the non-choices that Shepard had.
- Shepard automatically knocked Kaidan/Ash away from the beam.
- Shepard could not negotiate with the thorian, but had to kill it.
- Shepard had to accept the cipher and mind-meld with Liara.
- Shepard was required to interact with the Virmire beam.
- Shepard was required to work with Cerberus in ME2.
... etc.

Players had to accept Shepard doing all of these things (and many, many more) in order to play through the trilogy. Given the costs associated with the baggage that accumulated in the trilogy, I'm not at all surprised that they decided to restrict some of that in their fresh start.  Even so, players made some choices that could create baggage - like the new asari pathfinder, and whether the existing salarian pathfinder survives.


Yes, she was. Both of the Ryder twins served in the Alliance military.

Even though they volunteered, they agreed to follow Ryder's lead. It doesn't excuse them from doing dumb crap. They have to be held accountable for their actions just like the others.

I agree that Shepard did a lot of stuff that wouldn't fit each Shepard. One of my main issues is Shepard wasn't given the opportunity to ask questions throughout the trilogy

Again...not that same thing as going into the characters' office and executing them in cold blood. Entirely different scenario.

Never said it was.

So the moral of the story is the Inquisitor is a bad leader for doing too much...but Ryder is a bad leader for doing too little.. Like being unable to forcibly remove political leaders from office.

There should have never been a decision to be made had the commander of the destiny did her job. The other is I would have left the decision up to Hackett since he can see the battle and knows if the ship can be saved or not

It doesn't make sense that Commander Shepard would have the authority to give such an order, but if not people would be complaining about the lack of choices. I'm surprised some of the people here aren't angry they didn't have an option to blow up the DA themselves.