This is the talk page for Mass Effect 2 Cut Content.
Please limit discussions to topics that go into improving the article.
If you wish to discuss matters not relevant to article upkeep, take it to the blogs, forums,
Discord chat, or discussions module.
Thank you.


This page doesn't look very good. It had no links up until I added some just a few minutes ago, (even now the page is still wanting of some more links) and the audio buttons overlap the text. I don't know how to fix it, but it needs doing. --Effectofthemassvariety 05:37, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

Links are a good thing, but I can't see where the audio buttons are overlaping. They look just fine so I'm guessing it has to be you as I looked on IE, Firefox, and Chrome and no overlap. Lancer1289 05:47, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Same here, no overlap (Firefox user). -- Commdor (Talk) 05:49, December 19, 2010 (UTC)
Yup, I'm not seeing any rendering error either. I tested the template on IE, FF, and Chrome when I first made it. Would you mind posting what browser you're using? Also: audio in the Codex articles use the same template. Is there a problem there too? I'd love to fix it, but I need to know what's causing the problem first. :) -- Dammej (talk) 15:02, December 19, 2010 (UTC)

UM WHAT? All of the content on this page is IN THE FINAL GAME. EchostreamFanJosh

No, actually, none of it is. SpartHawg948 09:16, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, there is a reason this page is called Cut Content. I don't seem to remember those Codex entries or any of those locations. Unless I missed Susskind Station. Isn't that the system with the Migrant Fleet? Lancer1289 17:31, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

last i checked they do have thermal clips and they are a codex entry also the m920 cain is in game the m 100 and isnt thane a drell?

Everything you just listed, thermal clips included, have no (normally) accessible codex entries, even though they are included in the game. --  SwooshyCueb Acidpro Book Pencil  20:57, April 6, 2011 (UTC)

Cut audio Edit

Since this is a page for cut content, should such cut audio as Grunt/Mordin loyalty confrontation be mentioned here? --Kiadony 10:55, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

If it's available, sure. SpartHawg948 10:56, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Indeed I've heard things about this, so if it is avaliable, I want to see it, or listen to it. Lancer1289 17:31, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
The audio in question can be found here: UERD 17:36, January 10, 2011 (UTC)
Well that was a quick find wan't it. Anywa can anyone get that transcribed soon. I'd do it myself, but I'm not exactly good at that kind of thing. Lancer1289 17:46, January 10, 2011 (UTC)

Grunt/Mordin transcriptionEdit

Not sure exactly what goes with what.

  • Grunt: "I don't like being shot down in front of Mordin, Shepard. If he's right, he should be strong enough to fight me."
  • Shepard: "I sided with him because I know you can take it. He needs to be indulged."
  • Grunt: "So I can take it. That doesn't mean I like it."

  • Shepard: "You're not here because I agree with you. You're here because you're tough enough to suck it up."
  • Grunt: "I'm supposed to like being second to a salarian?"

FAILURE (side with Mordin):

  • Shepard: "Just do your job, it's all I need for you."
  • Grunt: "It's all you'll get. For now."


  • Shepard: "If I tried to avoid pissing you off, then I'd be weak. I can do this shuffle all day, Grunt."
  • Grunt: "You do it well for a human. Mordin is lucky you were there, Shepard. I'll let it go because we are clan.

(alternate): "You do it well for a human. Mordin is lucky you were there. Being Urdnot makes me want to fight, not just able to."

  • Shepard: "He needed me to step in before you tore him a new cloaca, or whatever they have."
  • Grunt: "That's true. Acts like he wants one. Alright, Shepard, I'll let it go, because we're clan."

(alternate): "That's true. Acts like he wants one. Being Urdnot makes me want to fight, not just able to."


  • Mordin: "Nothing to say to you. Talk to the krogan if you like."
  • Shepard: "Mordin, I need both of you. I need his brute strength and your brains, and I trust that when I take his side in an argument, you'll understand. I need to keep him happy."
  • Mordin: "Ah. Feelings weren't genuine. Were patronizing him. Understand now. Will stay out of his way. Thank you for talking, Shepard. Glad to clear this up. Need anything else?"


  • Shepard: "You can say whatever you like to the others, but don't mouth off at me."
  • Mordin: "Arrogant. Don't owe you anything, human. Am here doing my job. Can't ask any more."
  • Shepard: "I cured that plague on Omega! I faced down a krogan chieftain on Tuchanka. Get angry if you want, but do not walk away from me."
  • Mordin: " did. Apologies, Shepard. Tired of being yelled at, being told I made mistakes. Thought that ended on Tuchanka. Guess not."

FAILURE (side with Grunt):

  • Shepard: "Your attitude is up to you. Just get the job done."
  • Mordin: "Agreed."
  • Shepard: "Mordin, please. Talk to me."
  • Mordin: "Mission readiness not in doubt, Shepard. Nothing else to talk about."

UERD 01:18, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

These are dialogue trees extracted from game itself. Grunt's and Mordin's. Enjoy.

More cut audioEdit

The guy who posted the YouTube clip mentioned above has a bunch more with various unused dialogue. His page can be found here, if we want to add or mention this stuff.

Some notable stuff is tutorial stuff Miranda and Jacob recorded, a conversation with Grunt after his loyalty mission, a Harbinger speech, dialog if Tali had not found her father during her loyalty mission, an alternate version of the Conrad Verner encounter, and some obsolete Liara dialogue about the Shadow Broker.

"Your face is composed of durable material. We judge that investigation of this bar is warranted." - Legion

UERD 01:25, January 11, 2011 (UTC)

Here's some more, from the Presidium Groundskeeper. --Swooshy 03:16, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. If many more of these turn up though, we may have to implement some standards. I don't know about you all, but unused small talk from random NPCs doesn't really meet my definition of "cut content", as it has no real bearing on... well, on anything. The game is pretty much the same without this dialogue as it would be with it. SpartHawg948 03:24, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Well . . . here's something plot-relevant: [1]. I like going through pretty much all the cut content, no matter how trivial. I do think it should be included when talking about cut content. --Swooshy 03:29, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Perhaps in the future maybe we should set like main characters like the missing confrontation between Mordin and Grunt? Some others: Aria, squadmates, Anderson, Udina, Wrex/Wreav, Joker, EDI, Chakwas, the Illusive Man. I'm sure there are probably more, but there is probably a lot of cut audio from NPCs that probably wouldn't have much, if any impact. While missing things from people like some others, like a few of the ones I listed above, probably would have had much more of an impact. Lancer1289 03:32, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I understand completely. My concern though is if we find unused dialogue from ten or twenty or fifty random NPCs, none of which is anything more than idle banter and small talk about plants and horticulture and alcohol. I'd rather not bog down a page about substantive content that was cut with a deluge of dialogue that ultimately adds little to nothing. I'm not saying delete all that random NPC dialogue, just maybe put it on another page tailor-made for it, called "Unused dialogue" or something like that. Just a thought, in case the aforementioned situation does arise. SpartHawg948 03:33, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I think this is one of those situations that follow the old phrase; "We will cross that bridge when we come to it". Or something like that. Lancer1289 03:36, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I couldn't agree more. Would we be putting all the unused dialogue on that page or just the clips that don't have as much bearing on the game?--Swooshy 03:39, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that it should be for all dialogue that isn't critical to the plot (critical to the plot like, for example, the Grunt/Mordin feud would have been, seeing as it could likely result in one of their deaths). But that's just my opinion. SpartHawg948 03:42, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Just a heads up - video needs to be linked to, not uploaded and placed into the page. Doing so is a violation of site policy. A link to the YouTube page works just fine. SpartHawg948 03:53, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize that using Wikia's video embedding uploaded the video. I'm working on another OGG file for it, though, so there will be something there. --Swooshy 03:58, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Rog-o! Sounds good. That brings me to another question though - how are we going to format the "Cut Dialogue" section? Right now we have three entries. Two are formatted one way (with the audio accessible via reference links at the bottom), and one is formatted another way (with the audio right there, like it is for the Codex entries). It seems to me that we need to pick one or the other, not have both mixed in all willy-nilly. Personally, I think we should go to all entries having the audio right there, like it is for the Codex links and for the Groundskeeper dialogue. While I don't necessarily think it looks better, it's certainly much easier in terms of navigation, as you don't have to go to the bottom of the page and make sure to click the right link to get the audio you want. SpartHawg948 04:05, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Honestly I prefer the links over the audio files. Frankly we do use the "audio there" function for the Codex, and applying them to the audio files seems like a misuse of the "CodexEntry" template. But that's me. Lancer1289 04:14, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
But how many is too many? What about when we get more unused dialogue? How many links do we want down there? How many should people be expected to sort through? And we stress consistency so much on the wiki, so why should we deliberately keep this one page, and these handful of files on the page, inconsistent? It makes no sense whatsoever, none that I can see. SpartHawg948 04:22, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)At the time of creation, the only audio files intended to be embedded in the page were codex entries. If there's a desire to embed more (such as the cut dialogue), the template can be expanded and renamed to accommodate that new function. That is to say: don't let its name dissuade you from using it. It's a trivial issue to fix. I agree with SpartHawg's appraisal, though. It's good from a user experience perspective, but it could be made to look better. -- Dammej (talk) 04:24, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict)We have a lot of links in the ME2 article for things, and there will probably be the same thing for the ME3 article. If we want to use the link format, then we should put it in the same format as those pages. If you feel that we should go with the direct approach, then if we do keep getting more, then that will be a lot of boxes as well. I see the links as a more flowing alternative, they allow the page to flow better, rather than have a box every line or so. And a massive amount of CLR tags to go along with it. Lancer1289 04:29, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
But comparing these links to the links on the ME2 page is just plain specious. The two have little in common other than that they are links. The point of this page, after all, is the cut content. But in order to get to some, but not all, of the cut content, they have to go to the bottom of the page and click on links, which we normally reserve only for references. The links to the cut content are not references. They are the entire point of the article. Are you telling me that the references listed at the bottom of the ME2 page are the entire point of the ME2 article? Because that's what you must be telling me if the links here are comparable to the links there. I can live with "a lot of boxes". Lots of boxes works better than lots of links. Just look at the Codex if you don't believe me. Links do not allow the page to flow better. Want to know what makes the page flow better? Having everything on one topic in the same place. Having to jump down to the bottom of the page to hear the audio in no way makes the page flow better. A "massive amount of CLR tags"? Who cares? I don't. Is having to use a massive amount of CLR tags going to inconvenience anyone? Because having to skip to the bottom of the page to hear some of the audio is inconvenient.
And that brings me to the biggest issue I have with links, which you have yet to address. Consistency. How is using links for some of the audio and templates for the rest, all on the same page mind you, at all consistent? Answer: It isn't. Why are we abandoning consistency (which is one of the big things we strive for here, after all) for this one page? Why? Bottom line: Use of templates is consistent. Use of links is not. Use of templates is user friendly. Use of links is not. Use of templates inconveniences no one. Use of links does. Use of templates also, it so happens, has more support, at least atm. SpartHawg948 06:29, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Spart on this one. I'm actually planning on making OGGs for the dialogue myself. I'm a bit pressed for time at the moment, but they'll be ready soon. --Swooshy 03:40, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Huzzah for user-friendliness! (And for the word huzzah, now that you mention it. Cool word. So is "bully", when used in the same context. I may have to start saying that. But now I'm rambling, aren't I?) SpartHawg948 03:44, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

"Cut Audio" section Edit

So... I have a slight issue with the new "Cut Audio" section that sprang up with no discussion. My issue is that I don't really think it should exist. After all, it's at best a poorly named category, and at worst a category that renders a better one redundant. After all, the Codex entries are "Cut Audio", are they not? So, do they go in the "Cut Audio" section, or the "Codex Entries" section? And if they go in the "Codex Entries" section, why does the "Cut Audio" section exist, if not as a repository for all cut audio? Since there are only two cut audio blurbs that aren't Codex entries, I think we should leave them uncategorized, i.e. just as they were before the "Cut Audio" section was created. SpartHawg948 03:37, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

"Cut Dialogue" would make more sense. --Swooshy 03:39, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
That still leaves a category of two... which in my book is a synonym for "needless category". SpartHawg948 03:41, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I have more to add, namely the conversation with Harron about Palin. Though, it might be a bit before I have it uploaded. I guess for now, we can link to that youtube video. --Swooshy 03:44, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict x5)Well Codex entries are much different than audio, or at least to me. Audio to me is more along the lines of dialogue, sound effects, things like that. Granted Codex entries are audio files, but they are on a different level than general audio files like dialogue and sound effects. If you are that unhappy with it, then I'll just undo it, but I figured more dialogue files would be coming, so I was trying to look a little bit ahead as a stop gap measure until something more permanent could be devised. "Cut Dialogue" might be a better name though... Lancer1289 03:44, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought I made it pretty clear I was unhappy with an inaccurately worded title (as literally all the cut Codex entries are is audio, regardless of how you choose to define them). I'm also not too keen on mass categorization of pages (or any categorization of pages) based on the assumption of future additions, as that's just sloppy, IMO, but if there are for sure more audio files coming, we can keep the section, provided that it gets a name that accurately reflects the purpose of the section. SpartHawg948 03:50, January 13, 2011 (UTC)
I agree that 'Cut Audio' was not the optimal title for the section. I apologize if this fact made anyone uncomfortable, and I am glad to see that the issue was resolved through a discussion in which a consensus regarding a more appropriate section title was reached. UERD 05:22, January 13, 2011 (UTC)

And now for another question: Ya know how you can hack your save and add squadmates before they're available? Sometimes, these squadmates have something unique to say or some more conversation dialogue is opened up. (Example, choosing Legion to stay with Garrus on his recruitment mission when you go downstairs causes Garrus to say something along the lines of "Not what I expected, but I'll take all the help I can get." Should that go here, too? --Swooshy 03:52, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Good question. I'm really not sure. I think (though I could be wrong), that these lines are included in the various unique dialogue pages for the characters. And, now that I think about it, these lines aren't really "cut" content per se, as they are still present, just not accessible without hacking the saved game. As such, I'd be inclined to say no. SpartHawg948 03:56, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
We do already have that noted on the squadmate's UD page. Tali'Zorah nar Rayya/Unique dialogue and Legion/Unique dialogue. I would have to agree with Spart, they aren't cut, just inaccessable without hacking. Lancer1289 03:59, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
I see your point, but I still feel like mentioning this:
All of the audio that was "cut" is still on the disk or in the game files. The two upgrades (Bovine Fortitude and I forget the other) are accessible with hacking (I don't know if they do anything, though). It might also be possible to access the codex entries with hacking, but I haven't tried it. The guy in the aforementioned video managed to hack his way into the Presidium to unlock the dialogue with Haron. (And while we are on the subject of Haron, I will take the opportunity to again mention how awesome his facial tats are.)
While I agree that the squadmates' "hidden dialogue" doesn't belong here, I just thought this was worth mentioning.
. . .
Which brings me to another question: Should we create a page that contains all this hidden dialogue from the squadmates? --Swooshy 04:43, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need a separate page for the "hidden" UD, it belongs on the squadmates' individual UD pages and fits there nicely. On the other hand, I think Thane's unused line when he dies on the Suicide Mission (if he was romanced) is a different matter, that's why it isn't on his UD page, I guess, but it could be included here. Also, iirc, the second cut/unused upgrade was Quarian Shield (or something like this). --Kiadony 07:36, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Agree. A "Hidden Dialogue" page doesn't seem warranted. SpartHawg948 07:53, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Alrighty then, no "Hidden Dialogue" page. I'll look into Thane's unused audio, though. --Swooshy 13:10, January 14, 2011 (UTC)
Coming into this a little late, but I also have to agree that a hidden dialogue page doesn’t fit right. If it belongs to that squadmate, then it should be on their UD page. We already have precedent for this, and it fits better with current policies. Lancer1289 14:32, January 14, 2011 (UTC)

Better AudioBox template? Edit

The current AudioBox template was used specifically for Codex entries until the creation of this page. I'm working on (and am almost finished with) a better template that will allow a little more control over the visual aspects of the box. For now, all I've got is the option to change the icon. Here's the template, and here's the page where I'm testing it. Thoughts? --Swooshy 22:09, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

The best place for this is the Projects Forum not here as that is what that forum is for, things like this that wouldn't just be for this page, but could potentally go onto other pages. I'll direct any futher comments there once the new forum page is up. Lancer1289 22:12, January 31, 2011 (UTC)
[link] --Swooshy 22:37, January 31, 2011 (UTC)

Cut team member? Edit

Looking in the back of the Mass effect 2 game guide (collectors edition), there's some pictures of the game, and some art. and one of these pictures is a mission-end summary screen, with "Coultan's loyalty assured." ... wait, who? Anyone else noticed this? and why is it not mentioned, at all (it is a proper screenshot, not a mockup of it.). - Alex McPherson, who's not logged in for some reason.

Not until you noticed it actually. The picture in question is on page 310 of the CE edition of the guide and now I'm curious. However what I'm also seeing is some things that are not even in the game. What I'm thinking is this is an beta build, or maybe even an alpha build image and names were probably changed. Coultron might have been Thane's original name, and the screen could have been from a cut mission or assignment, we just can't be certain. What I can say is that we should get further information on this before we do anything. I'd recommend asking on the BioWare forums and seeing what comes up because we really need to know what this is. Lancer1289 13:29, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Lancer. While its possible it is a lost team member, it is much more likely it is a name change. Reading everything in that picture really shows it more as an early build sharing more in common with ME than ME2. It lists a weapon mod, a weapon mastery achievement, talent points earned/remaining and how complete some objectives were done.When I get a chance, I'll try and upload a picture of the image in question. Also tweeted Casey Hudson, maybe we'll get a response.--Xaero Dumort 16:23, November 3, 2011 (UTC)
Nice Xaero. I think Mr. Hudson might have to dig a bit to find that one, however I'm hoping we can get something on it as it might end up being trivia, somewhere. Lancer1289 17:37, November 3, 2011 (UTC)

Sovereign Edit

Why is Sovereign Codex entry listed as cut. It is available if you buy the Sovereign model ship on the Citadel. 22:01, March 10, 2012 (UTC)Zero85

Thank you for pointing that out. You were correct, the entry was not cut content. It has been removed. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:06, March 10, 2012 (UTC)

Move Edit

This page's name deviates from the standard naming scheme on this wiki so that should be corrected. As I proposed the move I, of course, Support it. Bastian964 13:22, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

Support move--silverstrike 13:29, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose. Lancer1289 18:28, April 15, 2012 (UTC)
Oppose move. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:35, April 15, 2012 (UTC)

I oppose for an entirely different reason. I believe it should be renamed as "Mass Effect 2 cut content" instead. — Teugene (Talk) 02:35, April 18, 2012 (UTC)

The move proposal fails 2-3. The article will not be moved. -- Commdor (Talk) 05:25, April 22, 2012 (UTC)

Leaked information? Edit

Is the the content of this article considered leaked information? I'm asking because some information of the Leviathan of Dis article was removed with this explanation (though it was also full of speculation and badly written). --ShardofTruth 16:45, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Well, this stiff was removed and not re-added, right? It's not leaked, but it doesn't really have a place on other articles. Mr. Mittens 17:38, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
The development cycle for ME3 isn't over, while it is over for ME2. Until we see whether the Leviathan of Dis DLC materializes, it would be considered "leaked," rather than "cut," despite the manner in which it was obtained. Trandra 17:50, July 2, 2012 (UTC)
Precisely what Trandra said. Also, given a recent Tweet from BioWare's Chris Priestly, it seems that the "Leviathan" material is being worked on by BioWare's writers as we speak, likely for future DLC. -- Commdor (Talk) 19:31, July 2, 2012 (UTC)

Voiced Ashley Letter Post-Horizon Edit

See here. TheUnknown285 (talk) 12:32, March 9, 2013 (UTC)

already noted on ashley's page, trivia section. raphael sbarge also made one for kaidan, also noted. they don't really constitute as "cut content" since apparently they were released after the fact, not stuck inside the game. T̴̴͕̲̞̳̖̼̱͒͛̎͒ͫ̃ͧeͩ̈̽̈҉͓̝̰̼̦̫̤̀͠m̫̪̪̯̻͎̫̅̇̓̇͌̚p̸̙̝̓̓͌ͨ͆ͣͥ̂̕o͒̽͐̽͏̞̬̻͕͔͕͚̰͍͠͞ṙ̢̞͚͈̹̰ͨ̓ͭ̈́̌ạ̢̧̪̹̺̺̣̹̲͂͆̏ͪͨ͒ͭř̹͈͜͠y̷͍̻̜̹̼̾̽̈́e̵̹̼̟̦͚͐̈́͌͘d͉̲̣̻͉̱͗̅ḭ̷̻̆͋̆̓̔͝t̨͍̦̫̗͂̅̍̋̆ͩ͝ộ̫̟̬̳̝̲̾ͫ̒̿ͮ̑̚rͯ̎ͨͭ̄̿̽͛҉̠̫̱̠̘̘̲́ͅ7̩̻ͤͩͨ͝͡8̜̣̙͇̻ͨ͛͛̆͒̆̽̒͐͜͡ ͥ̍̉̃̇ͥ̓ͨ͏̕҉̥̹͓̗̤̠̖̤ (talk) 12:39, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Ah, got you. TheUnknown285 (talk) 12:50, March 9, 2013 (UTC)
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.