Have Bioware lost their balls? (Mass Effect 2 SPOILERS)

[Eclectic Dreck]

Failing missions is just stupid.

This single statement here I absolutely disagree with. Consequences are necessary. Those old RPG games I used to play, there were many, many missions that I failed and I just played on because honestly it was just a part of how things worked back then.

Consequences are necessary; fail states are not. The thing is, a less than optimal outcome in a game like ME2 is simply a fail state by another name. How many people are going to keep an "honest" playthough of such a game when the end of the saga might well hing upon variables in previous games?

In the legion example, I'd have the game strongly warn against bringing Legion to the flotilla. If you ignored that warning, why not just have a giant firing squad waiting at the door and murder the team. It introduces an instant fail state brought about by making an absolutely moronic decision. An alternate example is that you force your way on board with Legion but, when the trial comes about, you simply find it impossible to keep Tali and lose her loyalty in the process. The two outcomes are largely equivalent because the consequence of poor decision making skills is that you simply cannot get an optimal outcome once the die is cast. The only difference is the former absolutely forces the player to try again while the latter will simply strongly encourage it.

 

[Titan Buttons]

I don't quite understand what you mean, since on my 2 play throughs of ME 1 I nevered failed a mission probably the only mission I can deem a faliure was when I had to leave Kaden to die and even then the game itself didn't really change since I bearly even used Kaden. Also the Werx shoot him option seems to just be 'if you never liked him you can now kill him' too me

 

[Nfritzappa]

snip

Yeah, I have little faith in ME3. They did the one thing I didn't want: make the game center around Earth.

Earth is just the prologue (and most likely ending too). The rest of the game is going to be going to several worlds to rally civilizations to fight the reapers. Game Informer states that Earth is not the only world being attacked.

 

[SteveeVader]

Yeah I noticed that as well Dragon Age 2 was rife with this; literally no consequence for saying stupid things. Yeah it appeals to a wider audience but it also takes you out the game and question it. I am really looking forward to Skyrim as Bethesda prefer the consequential dialogue. I do honestly think though that Bioware have kind of lost their spark in the last couple of years and NO I don't blame EA I think it is because they have gone mainstream through choice. Dragon Age 2 at first I like but as I played more it felt like Bioware farted in my face; about as much as an RPG as call of duty

 

[LordFisheh]

I'd also like to add that DAO is also a terrible game. You can walk about with Morrigan, an apostate, without being slaughtered by every Templar you see. You can walk around with Shale, a golem, and no one runs in terror or tries to take her for themselves. Bioware just dumbed the whole thing down so anyone can play it without considering the consequences of taking their companions out. Your decisions don't seem to have any kind of impact! For example, if you refuse to annul the Circle, you don't get abominations left right and center who appear and kill you before you finish of the Archdemon. Games these days have no consequences!!!!

/end sarcasm

And for the record, I'd prefer some serious consequences for bringing Legion aboard too, not to mention how paragon/renegade acts as a get out of jail free 'I win' button.. I just wish people would stop throwing down Bioware's sequels because they're 'dumbed down for the console tards' (probably killing PC gaming somewhere along the way).

If anything, allowing Legion makes for a more complex game. While I'd have preferred more dialogue and more hostility from the Quarians, surely it's better than your alternative. You say you want the Fleet to blast you to pieces for bringing him - what that amounts to is the game diverting you down a set path; if you deviate or try something new, you get a non standard game over and simply start again, this time not bringing Legion. It would be far better for games to accommodate player choices, providing, a totally different but still viable experience if you take Legion. Otherwise, you just get (when taken to its logical extreme) 'Your party is killed by enraged Quarians. Load last save?' 'Clan Urdnot see Mordin and attack on sight. Load last save?' 'The Templars notice Morrigan and slaughter you to a man. Load last save?'

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I wish people would read the damn post. A lot of responses are completely missing the point.

Allowing your decisions to have a meaningful impact on the game world or story is the real heart of any good roleplaying experience. This isn't some archaic convention like stats, hit points, turns, or the like. Logical, entertaining consequences are definitely notsomething that should be "streamlined" into oblivion.

A lot of people thought DA and ME were relatively weak in the "meaningful decisions" department, but those two games were still miles ahead of their more linear and restrictive sequels. If Bioware continue down this path, ME3 and DA3 will basically play like Metal Gear Solid with a slightly more customizable Snake.

The obvious culprit is the expenditure associated with voice-acting, which is a big reason why I don't care for voice-over in RPGs. They're not going to spend all that cash on optional or heavily divergent storylines, so the experience from one player to the next is going to be basically the same. A person with Baldur's Gate or Planescape experience would never say something like "my second time through DA2 was a lot different than my first!". If you hopped on the RPG boat this generation, you sorta got robbed.

If I were Bioware, I'd think about taking a more minimalist approach for the next IP. You can make an RPG without gobs of NPCs spouting gobs of dialogue. Just create a sparse and lonely world with only a small handful of extremely well-developed characters. That gives you a lot more wiggle room for unique and branching stories.

Edit: and why the hell do people keep saying "it's to appeal to a wider audience"? It's not. It's to save money on development costs. I can't think of a single person who prefers a game where your choices don't seem to matter. If anything, it seems you'd generate a LOT more interest with a game that truly shifted and reacted to the player - especially from casual and non-gamers.

 

[Stevepinto3]

This kind of stuff is common because the cost of making games has skyrocketed. So much time and effort go into just the basic mechanics that they can't always give the option for a million different things to happen. Changing things up like that means adding more dialogue, art, AI, levels, etc. It's just easier (and far, far cheaper) to skip over more complicated things like that. It's not because Bioware has caved, it's because games like ME2 are so damn expensive to make.

 

[m72_ar]

Case in point:

I replayed ME 2 and did Tali's mission right at the very end before the suicide mission. You know, the one where she was being charged with treason for sending back active Geth components to the Migrant Fleet. Out of morbid sense of curiosity, I decided to take Legion along with me.

And you know what?

There were one or two arguments with Quarians who were upset about an active, walking talking Geth on the Migrant fleet, but all I needed to do was be angry with them and they were fine with it. I just told them to f*** off and they backed down.

Is Bioware serious? Or have they just given up on the RPG elements of this game. Because frankly it appears that I can make the most appalling decisions possible and STILL succeed. Why the heck weren't the Quarians blasting the Geth, Tali, my entire crew, into oblivion?

It seems a continuing trend right now. I don't even know if I can actually fail more than one or two missions in the whole game. The suicide one, Zaeed's Loyalty mission... what else? What can you actually lose on?

I really miss old RPGs where if you did something, or said something, profoundly stupid, you were punished for it. Right now it seems I can do whatever I want, at any time, and the game just keeps rolling on without consequence.

Same as Dragon Age 2 by the way.

Thanks for reading my rant.

Name one Bioware RPG that actually does that.
BG? BG2? The worst thing that can happen is your party member leaving you permanently which is big whoop since it does not affect the story in any way.
KoTOR? There is always a last minute redemption/damnation.

Only The Witcher and Fallout Series (except 3) actually punish you for making a decision.
DA:O is a step in the right direction RPG wise but it's more like a 1 time thing and it's only mostly affecting the ending.

Bioware has no history of having an in game decision that may bite you in the ass in game. So why would you be surprised if ME2 is the same way. That's how they always do it.

 

[Stevepinto3]

I don't quite understand what you mean, since on my 2 play throughs of ME 1 I nevered failed a mission probably the only mission I can deem a faliure was when I had to leave Kaden to die and even then the game itself didn't really change since I bearly even used Kaden. Also the Werx shoot him option seems to just be 'if you never liked him you can now kill him' too me

If you don't have high enough Charm/Intimidate Ashley will shoot him, so it's actually a test to try and keep him alive.

 

[RedDeadFred]

If you choose the "wrong" one, then you face the consequences but there is the possibility of getting out of it just fine.

It's not that you have the possibility of getting out of it... it's that it is impossible to /not/ get out of it. The conversation choices feel absolutely meaningless if the end result is always the same.

There is probably a bunch of spoilers in this:

You need a certain amount of paragon or renegade points to be able to get out of these things. If you don't bad things do happen (death of Wrex squad members becoming disloyal). Heck I'll even use your example: if you don't have a high enough paragon/renegade score when you bring legion on Tali's loyalty mission, you are forced to send him back to your ship.

Also you can fail Thane and Samara's missions and Tali's if you make the wrong dialog choices (these result in the squad member being disloyal). So there is consequence for picking the wrong dialog option but one of the main strengths of Shepard is his ability to reason with people or get them to side with him. This is why he is the captain. He is just plain good at talking his way through things.

Plus, what is the point of having a whole bunch of wrong dialog choices that result in possible death (there is one though with Morin if you save her and then choose to have sex with her it kills you), people will just reload the save and pick a different option the next time and for me, that is an immersion killer.

 

[Legion]

I think they're just trying to appeal to a wider variety of gamers.

Lots of people (myself included) don't like the RPG elements that were present in DA1 or ME1 and found that the changed combat and general atmosphere in both sequels to be vast improvements. Granted, I've only played about 10 minutes of ME2 but it seems to be a similar change to DA2, so I can't really comment on the example you're giving but so far, it seems every action I've done in any Bioware game has consequences, be them large or small.

Plus, I'd imagine that Bioware just wants the story to be able to continue regardless of the choice you make. It just changes things up a bit depending on the decision you made.

Oh and it would do good to state just what you're spoiling in the title of this so people who have yet to play ME2 won't get that ruined for them.

True enough, but it is a ridiculous idea nonetheless. If people didn't like the RPG elements in Mass Effect 1 and Dragon Age: Origins then they are playing the wrong game, as Bioware traditionally make RPG's.

A lot of people loved Origins simply because it was a throwback to all the classic fantasy RPG's, they then made DA2 and turned it into more of a third person adventure game with a few classic RPG elements, while the changes they made were not that bad from a games

Voice acting is to blame... no, really, in a roundabout sort of way. Bioware's a big company, but they still can't afford to spend thousands on dialogue and scenario that only a small percentage of their players will ever see.

In Baldur's Gate choosing your companions and interacting with them could have massive repercussions. They'd fight, argue, and even turn on you as well as one another under the right conditions. However the game was also almost all text, capable of largely re-using other locations and character models for these events or even simply triggering them remotely if conditions are met. It took time and effort to write the dialogue and script the encounters, but it didn't cost the small fortune todays AAA games require even just for a seemingly trivial encounter.

Money, all comes down to money in the end.

Pity, but it's just an inevitable part of where the industry as a whole is headed.

This is very true, but the fact remains that most fans of these kinds of games would rather detailed and complex text options, rather than shallow, voice acted ones.perspective, it is from a game that is trying to claim to be an RPG.

 

[Titan Buttons]

I don't quite understand what you mean, since on my 2 play throughs of ME 1 I nevered failed a mission probably the only mission I can deem a faliure was when I had to leave Kaden to die and even then the game itself didn't really change since I bearly even used Kaden. Also the Werx shoot him option seems to just be 'if you never liked him you can now kill him' too me

If you don't have high enough Charm/Intimidate Ashley will shoot him, so it's actually a test to try and keep him alive.

Really? I thought that was just another option that you need her loyalty to do, well I just never had a problem with getting paragon and renagade

 

[Ian Caronia]

Case in point:

I replayed ME 2 and did Tali's mission right at the very end before the suicide mission. You know, the one where she was being charged with treason for sending back active Geth components to the Migrant Fleet. Out of morbid sense of curiosity, I decided to take Legion along with me.

And you know what?

There were one or two arguments with Quarians who were upset about an active, walking talking Geth on the Migrant fleet, but all I needed to do was be angry with them and they were fine with it. I just told them to f*** off and they backed down.

Is Bioware serious? Or have they just given up on the RPG elements of this game. Because frankly it appears that I can make the most appalling decisions possible and STILL succeed. Why the heck weren't the Quarians blasting the Geth, Tali, my entire crew, into oblivion?
*snip*
I really miss old RPGs where if you did something, or said something, profoundly stupid, you were punished for it. Right now it seems I can do whatever I want, at any time, and the game just keeps rolling on without consequence.

Same as Dragon Age 2 by the way.

Thanks for reading my rant.

No problem. To be honest I think it's just a ridiculous oversight made by lazy writing. Making up totally different scenarios depending on a character's actions is hard work! You ever run a table-top RP? It's enough to fry your brain!
...Unless there's multiple writers on board (and there were). Then it's just laziness.

I mean, not only do they not shoot Shep and crew to hell, but they don't even give a second glance at a geth that can speak! Coherently! Wouldn't mister Quib-Quib use Legion as a means to show everyone not all geth are equal right then and there?

Nope! That's for ME3! Can't have common sense and realistic reactions run the story when we need to save stuff for the sequel!
Ugh. I like ME2, but it's true that the more you play it the dumber parts of it get.

So, yeah, I chalk it up to laziness and a need to stretch things out for the final installment, which better actually change as "drastically" as Bioware execs claim it will according to our actions. We'll see, I suppose.

 

[RedDeadFred]

Yeh, I noticed nobody seems to have any reaction to a Geth just walking around. It was probably just an unavoidable oversight.

If you talk to the judges with Legion in your party, they talk to him, even question him. They could have made more out of it, but how much time shuld they spend working on a completly missable event?

Also, nobody really believes he's a real Geth. Anderson himself refers to it as Shepard's "Trophy bot."
Most people just think it's his personal robotic assistant.

 

[Burnseasons]

This is unrelated mostly, and I just noticed while reading through the thread.
Someone said (I forget who, sorry) That ME3 was goin to be about goin across the galaxy to try and gather species to help fight off the reapers..Where have I heard this before?

...

Dragon Age? Going across Ferelden to try and recruit all the factions you could?


Just something I thought I'd point out.

 

[Cenequus]

Well it kinda always been like that in all crpgs. I remember playing Storm of Zehir as a Yuan-ti and wandering why isn't the whole region trying to kill me in sight. It actually got better over time and atleast in later games they give you a reason for not beeing killed or arrested on sight(well in DA2 you get to be a known/respected figure in the Kirkwall society that keeps you away from the Mage's tower).

Thing is people still have trouble understanding the shades of grey around beeing good or evil. For one is because of all the bidimensional games that represent good or evil as black or white choices. Beyond this I guess many don't even try to understand the reason behind someones choices. A good example is Loghain from DAO or the same Alistair that can get more open to more "evil" actions if you "persuade" him with some lines in his personal quest. Does that makes Loghain a good guy for wanting the greater good?Same for Alistair he doesn't become "evil" if he understands sometimes you have to cut corners.

This are the shades of grey Bioware always had in her games and hardly I saw such an NPC development in other games.

 

[Android2137]

Speaking of oversights, the one that bothers me the most is Garrus. In ME1, you can actually leave him at the Citadel for the entire game while you and the rest of your crew go have super fun space adventures. But when you import that save where Garrus was never in your party to ME2, there's no alternate dialog or anything between Shepard and Garrus. They still act like Garrus was present during all of the ME1 events. A real shame, because I did a new run of ME1 with Garrus standing by the elevator for the whole game to see what happens and they still acted like old chums in ME2. Such a waste.

If you just left him by the elevator, then that makes sense. If you rejected him, you DO get alternate dialogue!

Case in point [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq-FbWbFkR8].

 

[KingofMadCows]

Since Mass Effect was always planned as a trilogy, the choices offered pretty much have to be limited to fit the pre-planned plot.

Games where you can do anything you want are fun but the problem is that the developers are pretty much always going to make one of the "better" ending canon when they make a sequel. For example, FO 2 followed the most of the better endings of FO 1, NV followed most of the better endings of FO 2, and I doubt that Obsidian will follow the Caesar's Legion ending if they get to make a New Vegas sequel. I think Storm of Zehir is one of the few games, if not the only game, that might have followed the "evil" ending of the previous plot.

 

[Indecipherable]

Failing missions results in bad roleplaying. Instead of going by how your character would act, you're only thinking of how not to get a mission failed and the best possible outcome, nullifying the purpose of an RPG experience.

How is it /not/ roleplaying when you are the Commander of a life vs death mission and you are not thinking about how to get the best possible outcome? That just blows my mind.