Mass Effect Series Catch-All

"Pulling things out of their ass," you mean, like, concocting a sequence of events? Like, the writing process?

Nearing the end of ME2, and I forgot just how much the dark energy idea was brought up - especially in Tali's recruitment and loyalty quests.

If the rumors are true - that EA strongarmed Bioware into changing the script after it was leaked - it's too bad that Bioware didn't try to stand their ground and stick with that dark energy plot. While I wasn't disappointed with the ending as it is now, I think that would have been much more interesting than the typical sci-fi trope of flawed AI logic resulting in extermination of organics.

I think that it's unfortunate as well. It's worth noting that biotics and mass effect itself depends on dark energy. I had supposed that the ultimate development of threads would come to a point where Shepard discovers that everything about their way of life leads to inevitable destruction. This is actually not less of a tired enviro-scifi trope than robots = bad, but it at least ties up a lot of disparate hints throughout the series. The seed for this revelation is in the very title itself - Mass Effect.

That said, ME2 and ME3 evolved from a plot-centric focus to a character-centric focus, and I think they're both stronger and better games for it. Many of us remember Garrus, Liara, Tali, Legion, Wrex, Kaidan, Ashley, and Mordin as strong characters that drive the series, but it wasn't always that way. We project the power developed from ME2 and ME3 back unto ME1. A replay of ME1 fresh reveals that Liara was annoyingly naive, Garrus and Tali were exposition machines, and Wrex was a one-note character. ME1's sole narrative strength was its phenomenal plot development, without which it would have been an inventive but ultimately mediocre experience - a mere derivative of KOTOR.

As much as I rag on how weak ME2's overarching plot elements are, it's a bit like criticizing Friends or Seinfeld for having weak overarching plot elements. Its strength in its characters, which derives from the Seven Samurai template. The classic tale itself is strong on character, exposition, and existential philosophizing, but weak on plot.

ME3 is fantastic in that it weaves a strong plot with strong, powerful characters. It has the luxury of doing so because of the groundwork in ME1 and ME2. The overarching Reaper element is campy in the Golden scifi era sort of way, but both Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs are some of the strongest gaming has ever produced, being a powerful narrative mated to compelling gameplay mechanics.

LarryC wrote:

I think that it's unfortunate as well. It's worth noting that biotics and mass effect itself depends on dark energy. I had supposed that the ultimate development of threads would come to a point where Shepard discovers that everything about their way of life leads to inevitable destruction. This is actually not less of a tired enviro-scifi trope than robots = bad, but it at least ties up a lot of disparate hints throughout the series. The seed for this revelation is in the very title itself - Mass Effect.

That said, ME2 and ME3 evolved from a plot-centric focus to a character-centric focus, and I think they're both stronger and better games for it. Many of us remember Garrus, Liara, Tali, Legion, Wrex, Kaidan, Ashley, and Mordin as strong characters that drive the series, but it wasn't always that way. We project the power developed from ME2 and ME3 back unto ME1. A replay of ME1 fresh reveals that Liara was annoyingly naive, Garrus and Tali were exposition machines, and Wrex was a one-note character. ME1's sole narrative strength was its phenomenal plot development, without which it would have been an inventive but ultimately mediocre experience - a mere derivative of KOTOR.

As much as I rag on how weak ME2's overarching plot elements are, it's a bit like criticizing Friends or Seinfeld for having weak overarching plot elements. Its strength in its characters, which derives from the Seven Samurai template. The classic tale itself is strong on character, exposition, and existential philosophizing, but weak on plot.

ME3 is fantastic in that it weaves a strong plot with strong, powerful characters. It has the luxury of doing so because of the groundwork in ME1 and ME2. The overarching Reaper element is campy in the Golden scifi era sort of way, but both Rannoch and Tuchanka arcs are some of the strongest gaming has ever produced, being a powerful narrative mated to compelling gameplay mechanics.

Repeat after me, the plot is not the story, the plot is not the story, the plot is not the story. The plot of ME was ok, the story was 1) what you made of it and 2) amazing!

maverickz wrote:

Repeat after me, the plot is not the story, the plot is not the story, the plot is not the story. The plot of ME was ok, the story was 1) what you made of it and 2) amazing!

Yep. And this is a general critique of Bioware's work overall - not just Mass Effect - that they are great character writers but not so great with story.

Also, Kaiden was NOT a strong character ;p.

LarryC wrote:

Being critical of parts of a game doesn't mean that I'm not a raving fanboy. ;)

LarryCzarkeesian ; D

Absolutely. I agree. I'm not sure if you've read a lot of the ME threads, but I do like the ME series a whole damn lot. I'm replaying ME3 for the fifth time at the moment with an Engineer. Engineer + Lash bonus power = lots'o fun! Fireball here, Chain Lightning there, Force Explosion over the other side; I'm a regular Black Mage.

I just think that gushing all the time about everything is bound to bore and annoy everyone more than I do regularly. Being critical of parts of a game doesn't mean that I'm not a raving fanboy.

nel e nel wrote:

Also, Kaiden was NOT a strong character ;p.

Haha. Touche. Both Ashley and Kaidan were supposed to represent Future Humanity, but I think the writers couldn't collectively decide on a compelling cultural identity for Future Humanity, and the bland character of the Virmire Survivor kind of reflects that.

I wouldn't call the Virmire Survivor strong per se, but they are a winding touchstone that connects the three games, so I figured I'd chuck them in there, however undeserving they may be.

LarryC wrote:

Absolutely. I agree. I'm not sure if you've read a lot of the ME threads, but I do like the ME series a whole damn lot. I'm replaying ME3 for the fifth time at the moment with an Engineer. Engineer + Lash bonus power = lots'o fun! Fireball here, Chain Lightning there, Force Explosion over the other side; I'm a regular Black Mage.

I just think that gushing all the time about everything is bound to bore and annoy everyone more than I do regularly. Being critical of parts of a game doesn't mean that I'm not a raving fanboy.

nel e nel wrote:

Also, Kaiden was NOT a strong character ;p.

Haha. Touche. Both Ashley and Kaidan were supposed to represent Future Humanity, but I think the writers couldn't collectively decide on a compelling cultural identity for Future Humanity, and the bland character of the Virmire Survivor kind of reflects that.

I wouldn't call the Virmire Survivor strong per se, but they are a winding touchstone that connects the three games, so I figured I'd chuck them in there, however undeserving they may be.

I really didn't like Ashley in ME1, too much of a caricature I thought. She became more dimensional in the follow ups, which I appreciated.

maverickz wrote:

I really didn't like Ashley in ME1, too much of a caricature I thought. She became more dimensional in the follow ups, which I appreciated.

I think she was supposed to provoke some unpopular questions without being a caricature, just that it didn't work for most people, so they scrapped it. Same with the Genophage as not being an entirely evil thing, and even the Renegade Shepard--maybe it was just me, but even Renegade Shepard was a lot more hero than anti-hero as the series went on.

Don't get me wrong, I mean, Kaiden snapped a Turian's neck with his brain, but outside of that, he's pretty milquetoast.

Ashley, on the other hand, shows a lot more character growth, starting off as a racist space-marine to coming around to appreciating diversity.

I am playing through ME3 on the Wii U and last night I finally had to drop the combat to easy. I am not even very far it but it was just annoying. The game pad is a neat idea but it controlled horribly. Had the controls worked as precisely as a real shooter I would have been ok I think but there was no good setting for the sensitivity so I was either flailing around like an idiot or moving at a snail's pace.

The big draw back seems to be that the cut off for easy is very, very low so now I can run into all the fights without even taking cover and kill all the enemies before I get hurt enough to die. So no challenge at all.

Anyway I guess I am playing for the story so I shouldn't complain.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
maverickz wrote:

I really didn't like Ashley in ME1, too much of a caricature I thought. She became more dimensional in the follow ups, which I appreciated.

I think she was supposed to provoke some unpopular questions without being a caricature, just that it didn't work for most people, so they scrapped it. Same with the Genophage as not being an entirely evil thing, and even the Renegade Shepard--maybe it was just me, but even Renegade Shepard was a lot more hero than anti-hero as the series went on.

Quite so. I think there's a simplistic gamer myth around Bioware and specifically Mass Effect games that Renegade and Paragon choices are mutually exclusive. Having played through the game many, many times, and reloaded narrative points over and over besides, I find that this is not so. Shepard's character is stronger and more interesting if it's welded and crafted from a selection of Renegade and Paragon choices. A character that doesn't change or evolve is boring. In the same manner, a pure Renegade or Paragon Shep is boring. She doesn't find that, after all, she does have her limits. Maybe she's outstandingly patient and diplomatic, but draws the line when you fire at the ship she's on. Then the usually cool Shepard breaks out of character and sucker-punches the Quarian asshole general. That's a more interesting story than an asshole Shep being her usual asshole self.

Alternatively, I played a mostly Renegade ruthless Shepard through most of ME1 and ME2. She's not an asshole on principle, so she's got Paragon points. She's just very, very, very ruthless. And blunt. Her story is that she took the Dalatrass' offer. Or she meant to, anyway. But that damned Mordin figured it out. She figured he would see the sense of it, but at the 11th hour he said something she never thought he would say.

He made a mistake. Mordin. The one who had to do everything because other people would have gotten it wrong; who spent so much time defending his actions. He finally 'fessed up.

I went so far as to point the gun at his back. Time slowed down dramatically for what seemed like an eternity. But at the key moment, Shepard found that she didn't have the guts to shoot her friend in the back. She throws away her gun in confusion and disgust. This self-realization is echoed later on when she and Kaidan find themselves on the opposite side of a showdown. She knows she can't shoot Kaidan. So she does everything in her power to talk him down. When Garrus confronts her about it later, she lies. She tells Garrus she would have shot Kaidan, but we know otherwise.

These are more interesting stories than pure Paragon/pure Renegade Sheps. And you're right. As the series matures, Renegade decisions gain solidity, plausibility, and drama. They're not just juvenile rebellious actions anymore done purely for the sake of being asshole.

nel e nel wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I mean, Kaiden snapped a Turian's neck with his brain, but outside of that, he's pretty milquetoast.

Ashley, on the other hand, shows a lot more character growth, starting off as a racist space-marine to coming around to appreciating diversity.

I think they wanted Kaidan to showcase the personal side of discrimination. He's supposed to be a biotic - one of the most reviled class of humans ever to walk the Earth; and he was taught military-style by a turian, who thought that he was lower than dirt. With him being cast in a white skin, I think it was too difficult to pull off. He's far too trusting, naive, and patient for where he was supposed to have come from.

The Virmire decision is way up there on my list of good ideas that didn't pay off like they should.

At that point, I didn't find either Ashley or Kaidan very interesting as characters, I wasn't using them except as the game demanded (Wrex, Garrus, and my Sentinel were an awesome squad), and worst of all, I didn't really get that I was sending somebody to certain death until I'd done it.

So I sent Ashley because she struck me as slightly more likely to come back alive, then belatedly realized "Oh, that was supposed to have been a big deal!".

:tagged:

farley3k wrote:

I am playing through ME3 on the Wii U and last night I finally had to drop the combat to easy. I am not even very far it but it was just annoying. The game pad is a neat idea but it controlled horribly. Had the controls worked as precisely as a real shooter I would have been ok I think but there was no good setting for the sensitivity so I was either flailing around like an idiot or moving at a snail's pace.

The big draw back seems to be that the cut off for easy is very, very low so now I can run into all the fights without even taking cover and kill all the enemies before I get hurt enough to die. So no challenge at all.

Anyway I guess I am playing for the story so I shouldn't complain.

If the game is too hard as a shooter, you can always play it RPG-style.

The way this works is to play it kind of like a JRPG'd XCOM.

You pause a lot. You send your teammates to cover locations and to engage the enemy. Crossfire, positioning will matter more since you won't be doing a lot of shooting yourself. Enemies will largely be killed by powers and squaddie fire. Your own gun output will be rather inconsequential. Maybe you'll use a bullet in a tough fight. Maybe two. This style of play is best done with Sentinel, Adept, or Engineer. To some extent, Soldier can also be played as a tactical powers class, but since her combos require painting the target using bullets, that still requires some direct TPS gunplay.

When playing in this manner, squaddie powers that upgrade their weapon damage, toughness, and HP will matter much, much more. A downed squaddie is not a very useful soldier, after all. In contrast, a playstyle that emphasizes a lone wolf Shepard using squaddies mostly for bonus powers will heavily prioritize Power Damage and Power Recharge.

EDIT: Er, FWIW, I was just looking for an excuse to talk about ME and particularly ME3 as a tactical RPG rather than a shooter. I'm riffing off your complaint because it was convenient, but I've been totally itching to talk about tactics, positioning, use of squaddie AI, and power combos.

LarryC wrote:

I think there's a simplistic gamer myth around Bioware and specifically Mass Effect games that Renegade and Paragon choices are mutually exclusive. Having played through the game many, many times, and reloaded narrative points over and over besides, I find that this is not so. Shepard's character is stronger and more interesting if it's welded and crafted from a selection of Renegade and Paragon choices. A character that doesn't change or evolve is boring. In the same manner, a pure Renegade or Paragon Shep is boring.

I agree quite a bit, and I think it's really quite a shame that the gameplay systems of ME and ME2 really punish you for not playing strictly one path or the other. It was frustrating to have role playing tied so intrinsically to such a binary mechanic, it felt less like making your decisions matter and more like being punished for responding genuinely to a situation.

ME3 loosened this restriction up a lot, but unfortunately also reduced the amount of chances you had for role playing. I think Dragon Age 2 did a lot to experiment with and drive forward the ME style of dialog role playing. The lack of an over riding good/evil meter in place of individual reputations with all of your party members really changes the dynamic. The fact that different party members can have either a positive or negative reaction to the same choices really makes you consider your words some based on who is in your party and who you are interested in remaining pals with, or fostering rivalries with. Plus the consistent and effective presence of a third way dialog option really broadens the role playing. Hawke's ability through dialog to be genuinely concerned about the plight of Kirkwall's citizens without being a total martyr willing to stick their neck out to help anybody without some promise of reward made for a much more grounded and believable character.

Really interested to see how BioWare is pushing these mechanics forward in the next gen. Can't wait for DA:I and I really can't wait to see what's in the cards for Mass Effect.

I came out about 50/50 paragon/renegade in all three games. It's a shame that the game mechanics don't seem to acknowledge this as a practical and powerful approach. Really, the points track reputation and experience, which has nothing to do with always being one way or the other. DA2 was a vast improvement in this respect.

MojoBox:

I agree quite a bit, and I think it's really quite a shame that the gameplay systems of ME and ME2 really punish you for not playing strictly one path or the other. It was frustrating to have role playing tied so intrinsically to such a binary mechanic, it felt less like making your decisions matter and more like being punished for responding genuinely to a situation.

I've played both games extensively. ME1 is a tad more strict about Charisma/Intimidate options, but you do have a plethora of points to boost the rep through the associated talent tree, since many of the gun skills are superfluous (the pistol is the most powerful gun). So you don't have to play strictly Paragon or Renegade. You just have to play mostly Paragon or mostly Renegade.

A lot of players consider the Charisma/Intimidate Talent to be a total waste of time. I don't, because I like having choices. I like crafting my own Shepard. With enough points in both trees, you have a very free hand in choosing what you like and still get both red and blue trees lighted up in later convos.

ME2 is more relaxed. There are only three key Reputation checks you can realistically fail where it matters - Morinth/Samara, Jack/Miranda, and Tali/Legion. Morinth/Samara is only important if you want to get Morinth or want to get at the alternative content (you will miss content either way on a single playthrough). Otherwise, it doesn't matter.

Jack/Miranda can be prioritized (get both Loyalties ASAP) so as to artificially create a temporarily high percentage of Paragon or Renegade decisions. The rep checks for percentage, not absolute amount. Once you're through that, you can choose mostly Paragon or mostly Renegade and still pass the Tali/Legion check later on simply by having that many rep points.

Random factoid: DA2's Hawke changes what she says on the same dialogue choice based on how you've been choosing for most of the game. Forceful Hawke starts sounding severe and blunt even on the most diplomatic of choices, and Diplomatic Hawke sounds conciliatory, even while she's telling you to kiss her ass. Sarcastic Hawke gets told off for trying to make everything a joke.

Apparently, ME3 also does this to a very small degree. A mostly Paragon Shepard appears to appeal to the better part of Quarian nature even when she's telling them that they're about to make a VERY BAD decision. Renegade Shepard tells them point-blank that she's through saving their asses from themselves and will happily let the Geth slaughter them if they really are that stupid.

I've played all of the ME games a half dozen times each (at least), so I know all of that, and I think it's part of the problem. There's a lot of gaming the system you have to do to walk the line and there's no benefit in it outside of your own personal satisfaction with being a "neutral" character. None of the games at any point reward you for being a balanced character.

In ME1 I know you can have both Intimidate and Persuade trees, but unlocking higher levels of those trees requires accruing Paragon and Renegade points, which means you have to be extremely completionist about the game and even then it's a stretch to get them all filled out, and also means spending less points in more useful skill trees. Yes it is doable, but it's also punitive in nature since it uses up skill points that could go in to powering up your combat prowess. And there's no good reason to do it, in terms of what the characters can achieve there's complete parity between Paragon/Renegade. There's no Paragon only solutions that I can think of in any of the games. Either Paragon or Renegade Shep can talk Saren in to blowing his brains out, it doesn't matter which choice you make as much as making that choice exclusively.

In ME2, in all my many playthroughs, I've never once been able to play Paragon/Renegade in a purely reactive way and not at some point fail a check. I'm sure I could game it out to make sure that I can pass the checks but again there's no reward in playing it by the gut that is any way better than just sticking to one option or the other. Sometimes you may only fail the Morinth/Samara check which, yeah, isn't a big deal. But more often it results in the irretrievable loss of loyalty from a party member. Again, it is possible to play it both ways and succeed, but there's no reward for doing it right only punishment for doing it wrong.

I think BioWare agrees with this since ME3 did away with the opposed nature of Paragon/Renegade in 3 and just gave you a simple accumulative rep system and the writing better supports this freedom as well. I wouldn't mind having an elaborate system to game if their was a reward in playing it well, in walking a fine line and being afforded opportunities and solutions that players who played it one way or the other would never see. That would in fact be awesome. But ME never goes there, in the end there's no point in being anything but a Paragon or a Renegade exclusively.

I beg your pardon, MojoBox, but my point is that there is a point in not being Paragon or Renegade exclusively. The payoff in not gaming the narrative system like that is that you get a stronger Shepard character and a better narrative experience. Narrative rewards is a staple in game systems since the NES. In Ninja Gaiden, your payoff for a good gameplay run was often a single narrative exposition. In ME, that narrative exposition is freely given, but at the cost of other choices. That is, whether you choose a Paragon locked option or not, you lose whatever option you do not choose. Whether the Paragon or Renegade locked choice is superior is debatable and subjective, but it is a fact that you only get to choose one path out of all your choices, whichever you choose.

That is, the reward for a balanced character is a Shepard of your choosing - which is exactly the reward you get for choosing pure Paragon or Renegade anyway. Arguably, the payoff for not adhering exclusively to each path is stronger, because you have greater freedom of expression.

In ME1 I know you can have both Intimidate and Persuade trees, but unlocking higher levels of those trees requires accruing Paragon and Renegade points, which means you have to be extremely completionist about the game and even then it's a stretch to get them all filled out, and also means spending less points in more useful skill trees. Yes it is doable, but it's also punitive in nature since it uses up skill points that could go in to powering up your combat prowess. And there's no good reason to do it, in terms of what the characters can achieve there's complete parity between Paragon/Renegade. There's no Paragon only solutions that I can think of in any of the games. Either Paragon or Renegade Shep can talk Saren in to blowing his brains out, it doesn't matter which choice you make as much as making that choice exclusively.

Er. This is starting to repeat, so I'll just emphasize it just this once.

Sacrificing an entire gun class to fill out Intimidate or Persuasion does not affect your combat prowess in any way because you only ever need one gun class to be effective, which is the Pistol. For Power classes, you usually have a single broken power or two that trivializes combat quickly anyway. Every other power becomes superfluous, even on Insanity setting.

You give up flavor choices in battle in order to gain flavor choices in the narrative. It is an equivalent exchange.

Whether it matters or not which options are open to your Shepard depends on how much you want to make whichever choice you want. For my first playthrough, I wanted all narrative options open, so it did matter to me that both options were open as much as possible in order to give me as much freedom to express my own Shepard as possible. Both Renegade and Paragon options gets Saren to blow his brains out, but the Shepard that gets expressed in either choice is different; so it's not all the same to me. That was precisely my point. That is a good enough reason to do it, and it's not particularly punitive to choose to build Shepard this way given the number of broken abilities in ME1. All you need is one.

In ME2, in all my many playthroughs, I've never once been able to play Paragon/Renegade in a purely reactive way and not at some point fail a check. I'm sure I could game it out to make sure that I can pass the checks but again there's no reward in playing it by the gut that is any way better than just sticking to one option or the other. Sometimes you may only fail the Morinth/Samara check which, yeah, isn't a big deal. But more often it results in the irretrievable loss of loyalty from a party member. Again, it is possible to play it both ways and succeed, but there's no reward for doing it right only punishment for doing it wrong.

Once again, getting repetitive, so I'll make it brief. Repeating myself: the reward I get is that I have a stronger character - a more plausible, more human, more interesting Shepard. To me, this is worth the cost of knowing how to do it right. I think it's even worth the "cost" of a companion Loyalty, since I don't necessarily count that as a loss.

For further clarity, I think ME3 and DA2's freer system is a step up in that you don't have to game the narrative to free up convo choices quite as much, but there's a small tradeoff there.

LarryC wrote:

Once again, getting repetitive, so I'll make it brief. Repeating myself: the reward I get is that I have a stronger character - a more plausible, more human, more interesting Shepard. To me, this is worth the cost of knowing how to do it right. I think it's even worth the "cost" of a companion Loyalty, since I don't necessarily count that as a loss.

I agree. And as a 50/50 Shepherd, the only negative effects I can recall is not being able to win Miranda's loyalty in ME2, and not being able to produce a peaceful resolution to the Geth/Quarian problem in ME3. I obviously didn't always have interesting dialog options in other situations (since these sometimes required a paragon or renegade score I lacked), but missing them never resulted in the death of a crew member or failure of an objective. So while the lack of game support for a "realistic" Shepherd was sometimes frustrating in terms of visible game mechanics, the net result really wasn't so bad anyway. I honestly don't understand why anyone would stick to a purely renegade or paragon path in the games unless they're going for a mechanically optimal "win" scenario and simply gaming the system.

For reference:

IMAGE(http://static.comicvine.com/uploads/original/5/59032/3199841-shepard.jpg)

A mixed Paragon/Renegade Shepard will still usually have enough to open multiple convo options in ME2. In fact, in one of my playthroughs, I had both Renegade and Paragon locked options open for Morinth.

I agree that the choices are the point, that's good roleplaying, but where I disagree is that I think the paragon/renegade game mechanic inhibits and hinders making these choices. The way the mechanic is presented is as another stat you ought to maximize, and grayed out dialog options don't feel like the consequences of your choices so much as a failure to properly spec your build.

The player has to try harder to role play when they are fighting the inertia of a game mechanic that's visually communicating to them that they are failing.

I'm not saying it's impossible to walk the line, or that you can't craft an interesting scenario by doing so failures and all, but I am saying the game design discourages role playing in what is ostensibly a role playing game. I think BioWare knows this since they backed off of that design by ME3.

Don't get me wrong, the ME trilogy is amazing and a deeply meaningful experience for me. But I see the flaws after so many hundreds of hours with the game systems and I'm looking forward to it being iterated and improved and I already see signs that BioWare is on the right path.

I largely agree with that, MojoBox. The Renegade/Paragon system is designed to make a bit of a game out of the narrative choices and Bioware has obviously struggled with how to express failure states and choice/consequence in character expression. The failure of the system is that most classic of Bioware failings - it's obtuse and undocumented. It certainly appears as if you can't be both Paragon and Renegade at the same time, but appearances can be deceiving. In this case, it definitely is. The way Paragon/Renegade unlocks work in all three games is often very counterintuitive and they're not the same.

The screen cap above shows how you can unlock Paragon/Renegade in ME2. This is also possible in ME1.

Here's an example:

IMAGE(http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b35/Leonia/MassEffect2011-08-2621-52-56-56.jpg)

The system changed between ME and ME2. As far as I can recall, the Paragon and Renegade bars give you bonus points for Charm or Intimidate. The level of Charm and Intimidate unlocks the narrative choices. An even distribution of Paragon and Renegade choices gives you enough points to max both Intimidate and Charm at the cost of a few skills. IIRC, it is not actually necessary to max both skills to unlock all the narrative choices - the higher levels give you better selling prices and store discounts only. An overmaxxed Paragon or Renegade bar doesn't give you more points, so it's more efficient from a mechanical standpoint to mix choices once you get all the points from a personality bar assuming you want to open as many narrative branches as possible.

IMAGE(https://38.media.tumblr.com/d6be48273cb6697983a7995563eee59a/tumblr_ncbkdupvPU1qhn2hto1_500.jpg)

MojoBox and LarryC, thank you for stating very succinctly and clearly my nuanced feelings about the Paragon/Renegade Intimidate/Charm mechanics.

Not that this is unique to Mass Effect. Too many video games have trite binary "morality" systems that, either explicitly or tacitly, encourage you to sacrifice an organic experience for the rewards of "consistency." Even Dungeons & Dragons came up with a better alignment system, like, forty years ago.

It is not as bad now because in hindsight, with the whole series behind me, I can say that "gaming" the system for an "optimal" result doesn't actually net that much advantage and isn't worth messing with a unique story experience. Playing the games new, though, I was always terrified that I was going to lock myself out of something amazing with my choices.

It's quite unfortunate that they even called it a "morality system" to begin with. Shepard is never actually a classic antihero. She is always trying to save the galaxy, always courageous, and always exceptional. These are all qualities of even the most classic of Greek heroes such as Odysseus and Achilles, all of whom had no shortage of personal dickery to dish out if and when they pleased. This is more apparent in the second and third games of the series where Shepard's actions and the sweep of events are more circumscribed.

I feel that it's more consistent to call it a personality system. What we have here is a space marine who is predetermined to be a hero. We just get to decide the sort of hero she gets to be. Is she Superman? Is she Captain Marvel? Is she more noirish or is she more Silver Age? There isn't really a whole lot of morality choices we're provided on the fundamental decisions. We can't join up with Saren. We can't control the Reapers and decide to continue the cycles, after all. We can't decide to continue working wholehearted with The Illusive Man and replace Kai Leng.

It's less a choice between Good and Evil and more of a choice between Lawful and Chaotic. Honestly, it's more of a choice between beige and off-white, since Shepard's character is constrained to act against Alliance law regardless of how you choose; so she's Neutral Good at best.

The opacity and suggestive coercion of the Paragon/Renegade system is very damaging to the ME experience across all three games. I hope my posts here have helped convince readers that they can choose to be the Shepard they want to be, and still have open choices later on.

The Mass Butterfly Effect

I've been meaning to talk about this aspect of the ME games for a while, and since other conversation appears to have died down, I guess this is as good a time as any. In the above excellent video, Daniel Floyd talks about choice and consequence in games and how they differ. It's a great piece that's necessary, I think, when talking and comparing games like DA and The Witcher, and particularly the Bioware ethos when it comes to the design of their interactive fiction.

A lot of bandwidth and gnashing of teeth has been expended over the ME games in criticizing how they're not really about choices and how the choices they offer are illusory. While it may be true that some choices in the games can lead to similar outcomes, there are many branching points with radically different story conclusions. The complex interplay of various choices in each story arc that culminates in the Rannoch and Tuchanka chapters in ME3 argues strongly that your choices do play a role in the outcome.

However, Bioware has chosen a different way to go about their business compared to other developers. For good or for ill, a good part of the drama in Bioware games is at the point of decision making. Every event that follows a set of decisions makes so much natural and narrative sense that the consequences of particular choices are often completely invisible. Indeed, choices you didn't know you made could often influence events and the story in surprising ways. This consequence from unintended or unknown causes can be thought of as Butterfly Effect.

An imperfect example of this is in the suicide mission. Every choice in that mission makes sense, but you'll have to be scoring well in a quiz you don't know you're even taking in order to make it through unscathed. The characters seem to be asking straightforward questions, but the game is really asking you, "Have you been paying attention?" Miranda often has a lot to say in this segment, as is consistent with her character, but the entire story up to that point will lead observant gamers to question her ability to judge character. Her project is destroyed by a traitor. Her loyalty mission is about betrayal from the inside. She openly doubts Shepard despite proven successes, and believes in herself beyond what the data tells her.

Will Tali be a good Fire Team Leader? Well. She got her entire team killed on Haestrom. That can't be good. How about Garrus? His team got massacred as well, but was that the same thing?

The game also asks you to make decisions the import of which is unknown. Sometimes, the lesson is that all possible consequences of any decision cannot be predicted (Maelon's data), but often the lesson is that seemingly simple decisions can often have unintended ramifications. Saving Kirrahe on Virmire 2 games back seems like such a throwaway side objective, but it turns out that he's an added layer of protection that impacts whether or not you can convince the Virmire Survivor to stand down to live another day. Treating Conrad Verner well has the highly entertaining/alternately super tragic consequence of his actually saving Shepard's life. You can't know how this will turn out at the decision point.

I'm not sure whether this is a strength or a weakness. Players often mistake narrative smoothness for lack of consequence. Bioware's narrative flows so naturally and organically from the choices you make (when they matter), that it often isn't apparent that any other thing could possibly happen. It can seem like Councillor Esheel could not be assassinated (she can). It seems like Mordin's death is inevitable (it's not). It's a level of nuance that can be difficult to appreciate without playing through the game multiple times along multiple different decision paths.

Thanks for sharing that video, LarryC. So, have you played Spec Ops: The Line, and should I?

The Spec Ops mechanics are pretty meh, but the story is really well done.