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

[Julianking93]

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.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Well... I have yet to encounter that problem to be honest.
But the only thing I can imagine is that the developers and writers had a set story with a specific ending or with a specific action done by the characters, so no matter what, the outcome will be the same.

It's similar to...

Spoiler: ME1 spoilers

Mass Effect's ending when no matter what you do at the end, The Council (or was it the Citadel?) will always be destroyed.

I guess it's just how the writers wanted the story to end up. I suppose they simply don't have enough room for so many options but I've actually yet to encounter a problem like this, or at least one that I noticed. Everything seemed fine to me and I like the outcomes of the games. If it turns out to be one way no matter what my action... I don't know. It's just never bothered me. Sorry for going around it circles here I guess, but I never felt this was that big of a problem. I'm more used to straight forward storylines so I don't question the lack of outcome options in certain games

One thing I will point out though is that you have to remember; Bioware intended for these games to have sequels, so writing things with different endings just makes writing those sequels more difficult. Following a set story no matter what your actions may be allows for the writers to have better sequels in the future

 

[kuyo]

I still think bringing Miranda on The Migrant fleet is even worse than Legion. Sure, she's not the only one who doesn't wear a helmet, but Mordin and Jack are bald, so I feel that makes them not as bad. Also, the fact that you're flying around in a white stealth ship with a bunch of terrorist logos on it should be enough evidence.
Not that there isn't more.

 

[Gigatoast]

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.

Well I guess that shows how gaming has evolved over the years. I get the appeal, but nobody's going to fail a mission and just accept their failure, they'll just reload the quick save and do it again. You have to think of more clever ways to impose consequence then simply saying "Mission Failed".

If you allow the player multiple ways to complete the mission all of which ending well for the player, then they feel like they did the right thing until the consequences bite them in the ass. Bioware has taken this approach, remember the Rackni queen in Mass Effect 1. Well if you spared her she's going to help you defeat the Reapers in ME3, but if you killed her... you're effed. (not entirely of coarse, that'd be screwed up)

 

[ZeZZZZevy]

well when you think about it, if renegade options caused fights, whereas paragon did not, then that would make certain paths harder, and the game wouldn't be balanced. Also, renegade options generally only embody a "tough/balzy" dialogue option, and paragon being the "nice/friendly" dialogue option

that being said, I generally went renegade, but made paragon decisions when I felt that the renegade option was dumb (stupid Cerberus)

 

[Zhukov]

... but the more I play it the more I realise I can't actually do anything wrong. I will always win, even despite my best attempts to do things that are foolish.

Are you aware that if you get enough things wrong, Shepard and his entire team dies?

Granted, you have to act like a complete moron for that to happen, but still...

 

[Indecipherable]

remember the Rackni queen in Mass Effect 1. Well if you spared her she's going to help you defeat the Reapers in ME3, but if you killed her... you're effed. (not entirely of coarse, that'd be screwed up)

What'd be really funny is that the bleeding hearts that saved the Rachni Queen and listened to her lies discover that they've gone back to their old ways and bred up an army to stomp out bipedal life across the galaxy.

I honestly doubt that Rachni thing will have any real significance. Save them or don't save them will just be maybe one or two lines of dialog then business as usual.

 

[Indecipherable]

... but the more I play it the more I realise I can't actually do anything wrong. I will always win, even despite my best attempts to do things that are foolish.

Are you aware that if you get enough things wrong, Shepard and his entire team dies?

Granted, you have to act like a complete moron for that to happen, but still...

Yes, I pointed out that you can fail the suicide mission and you can fail Zaeed's loyalty mission. That was in the very first post which I assume you must not have read.

 

[Eldarion]

There is little to no role play in mass effect, that and all of the "choice" in these games are illusions or to arbitrary to count. There is no negative consequences for anything you can choose to do, aside from one or 2 missions that you can fail and have the story continue just like you said.

Mass effect (both of them) is an action game with good likable characters and great writing. A role playing game it is not.

 

[Indecipherable]

i've never seen a game that boasted "every decision makes a difference" without it being a huuuuuge exaduration. the basic formular for rpgs with choice all through it like this, is to have a single story, and have every possible choice lead back to the same result, perhaps hoping that you'll never play through twice and notice that it's gonna be the same no matter what yo do.

Fallout/Arcanum and other old school RPGs.

I'm /finally/ playing Planescape Torment after years of wanting to get into it so maybe that'll get added to the list.

 

[darkcommanderq]

You obviously dont get it. Shepard is a specter and the quarians already like you. If you were some random ass human, first off they would not have let you on board the fleet. 2nd off if you were a random ass human you would not have a geth traveling around with you.

In all of the mass effect games your the top of the top. Even the quarians will react to you bring a geth on board, but they are willing to talk with you about it.

You need to look at the game from the perspective from what your doing. Also I did that exact same thing to and it was hilarious.

I also have to question your judgement for wanting to party wipe because of an RP decision....

 

[lovest harding]

1. Because allowing that consequence to happen would completely change the entire game universe (Shepard completely wiped out the head ship of the Migrant fleet because he brought a Geth on board and pissed everyone off enough to cause destruction so widespread it could lead to the very end of a species). Which would cost a lot more time, effort and money to completely integrate a point in the story that would virtually split the remaining story or at least fork major events (unless of course they gave us a Fallout ending in which we're quickly told what happened, but they'd still need to integrate dialogue and story to fit those events while playing).

2. The problem with comparing older games to current games is that they're not even in the same category. Especially with how they were developed and how development money was used (compared to full on voice acting). Older games had quite a bit more going for them story wise because of the lack (and acceptance of that lack) of full voice acting. Of course Baldur's Gate could present more options than Dragon Age. Text is super easy and cheap to insert. They didn't have to hire actors for every character. When a triple-A game is expected to be entirely voice-acted, BioWare creates accordingly.

3. I can promise that every game these days is like that. Don't fault BioWare for what is the norm (feel free to accuse them of not being particularly original when it comes to the 'never lose' mechanic). I can play Halo and not fail at anything. I can play Oblivion and not really fail. I can play Assassin's Creed and not fail. The idea is to play the game that was created, not hope and wish that my every whim could be satisfied in the game (because, let's face it, they're not going to make an option for every single possible outcome of every event).

4. It's BioWare's game. They get the say as to what can happen and where the story goes. If they don't want Shepard to wipe out the head ship of the Migrant Fleet (or vice versa), they don't have to include it. As gamers the only say we have is with our money. And if we have an opinion that can't be easily voiced with our money, then we should direct our issues to the company. I say, send BioWare an e-mail and tell them what you think of that situation. Don't be rude and don't rant, just tell them in plain terms what you'd like to see (heck, even tell them that you won't buy another one of their games until they rectify the issue you have and then follow through with that if you want, your money will speak louder than your voice to them). If everyone who had an issue with a game just did that, odds are a lot of games would move in a direction that would be conducive to what people want.

That's just how I feel about the situation.
These are numbered to keep my ideas separate. The order doesn't matter, it was more to make sure I included all of my own ideas without forgetting much.

 

[Goofguy]

Sometimes I like to think that Shepard's status as a highly influential and famous person grants him clemency in these types of situations. Maybe the Quarians were able to led it slide because if anyone knows Geth, it's Shepard and if he says the one with him is alright then it's worth accepting... with a grain of salt, of course.

I'm well aware that that is just one example of many. I have an inkling that when it all builds up to the last game in a trilogy, you can't have TOO many divergent paths in the first two games. Otherwise, there will have to be tens of thousands of variables in the last game. Maybe that's why Bioware hasn't punished anyone in the first two ME games because having only slightly different outcomes in some encounters could be exponentially significant later on.

Here's hoping ME3 is a bit more... unforgiving in this regard.

 

[The Madman]

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.

 

[Indecipherable]

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 all text, capable of largely re-using other locations 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 I like.

 

[Zhukov]

... but the more I play it the more I realise I can't actually do anything wrong. I will always win, even despite my best attempts to do things that are foolish.

Are you aware that if you get enough things wrong, Shepard and his entire team dies?

Granted, you have to act like a complete moron for that to happen, but still...

Yes, I pointed out that you can fail the suicide mission and you can fail Zaeed's loyalty mission. That was in the very first post which I assume you must not have read.

Well there you go then. You can fail missions. You can get your character killed. You can get the majority of the cast killed.

Isn't that what you wanted?

Also, you can fail Thane's loyalty mission.

...

PS. Kindly refrain from getting pissy. I read the first post.

 

[Gigatoast]

remember the Rackni queen in Mass Effect 1. Well if you spared her she's going to help you defeat the Reapers in ME3, but if you killed her... you're effed. (not entirely of coarse, that'd be screwed up)

What'd be really funny is that the bleeding hearts that saved the Rachni Queen and listened to her lies discover that they've gone back to their old ways and bred up an army to stomp out bipedal life across the galaxy.

I honestly doubt that Rachni thing will have any real significance. Save them or don't save them will just be maybe one or two lines of dialog then business as usual.

Well, Bioware DID say the plot of ME3 will center around Shepard galavanting across the galaxy trying to get people to help him take Earth back from the reapers. And in ME2 the Rachni queen contacted you saying she was in your debt and if you ever need the Rachni's help you should go see her. It's pretty much a no-brainer.

 

[Indecipherable]

remember the Rackni queen in Mass Effect 1. Well if you spared her she's going to help you defeat the Reapers in ME3, but if you killed her... you're effed. (not entirely of coarse, that'd be screwed up)

What'd be really funny is that the bleeding hearts that saved the Rachni Queen and listened to her lies discover that they've gone back to their old ways and bred up an army to stomp out bipedal life across the galaxy.

I honestly doubt that Rachni thing will have any real significance. Save them or don't save them will just be maybe one or two lines of dialog then business as usual.

Well, Bioware DID say the plot of ME3 will center around Shepard galavanting across the galaxy trying to get people to help him take Earth back from the reapers. And in ME2 the Rachni queen contacted you saying she was in your debt and if you ever need the Rachni's help you should go see her. It's pretty much a no-brainer.

I'm not sure how it's a no brainer.

See, if I was a Rachni and there was this super ass-kicking human going around and stomping everyone, you know what I would do? I would lie. Lie my little Rachni ass off. No matter what I would make myself appear as an ally and draw as little attention to myself as possible.

Real Intentions:

Take over the world - "Hi Shepherd we are friends!"

or

Be allied with Shepherd - "Hi Shepherd we are friends!"

Whatever real intentions the Rachni have, you can only guess at.

 

[fluffybunny937]

I think what we have to consider about Mass Effect is that it has always been a build up to ME3.

 

[Coffeemaker]

I know what you mean. I hated how even when I stopped Zaeed from getting his revenge, all it took was one paragon option for him to become loyal anyway. Felt like the whole mission was a bit pointless.