My views on the Mass Effect series greatest flaw... and how Fallout is better.

[Chris Tian]

snip

You are right for the most part. The ME series does not make you "really feel" the consequences of your choices. It trys to keep up this illusion of choice and consequence, but without actually changing anything major about the events and status quo of the games.

While the theoretical changes in the universe can be major and fundamentally different, you never really see them. For example at the end of ME three whole species can be extinct and/or doomed, but alot of people complaint that the endings are all the same, because Bioware failed to really make you feel the differences.

I think the real problem is the game making a promis that it can't hold. If a dev wants to tell a neatly wrapped up story and does not want to give the player to much freedom to change anything, okay. No harm done. Just don't pretend I get to change stuff when I really can't.
Thats one of the big mistakes Skyrim made, for me at least. If the world you build can't change, dont give me stuff to do that should change it majorly.

Fallout: NV on the other hand is a more sandboxy rpg and they did a good job making your choices impact your game and how the world reacts to you, but its hard to compare to ME due to the basic differences.
I think a game that is from a design and storytelling point of view closer to ME is The Witcher, and that game does really change your experience according to your choices. The Witcher 2 is basically two different games depending on your choices.

 

[Echopunk]

Choice did matter in the first Mass Effect game. If you screwed up, didn't invest heavily in Charm or Intimidate, and neglected to get Wrex his armor back Virmire ended up costing you two party members instead of one. With the "one must die" situation, which was actually two choices, the first game put me on my guard.

I actually expected my Shepard to get killed at the end of Mass Effect 2. With the whole "export your save... if you survive" thing linking in with the way the first game had worked, in my mind. I remember being tense during every little cutscene in the Collector Base, hoping I'd made the right decisions to keep my team alive and wondering if the game would pull a Virmire on me and make me choose between my objective or some very valued teammates. I was so relieved when everybody made it back to the shuttle, but I started to get nervous again during the conversation with the Illusive Man. I actually expected him to kill-switch my Shepard for disobeying him and blowing the base up. The took the happy ending approach, as long as you made a point to talk to everyone and waste a bunch of time scanning planets.

I think that is why Mass Effect 3's ending was such a sour note for me. ME1 made me worry all the way through ME2 that they were going to pull another Virmire on me. In ME3, as soon as they introduced the Deus Ex MacGuffin, I figured it was just going to be a matter of talking to everyone and gathering enough resources to get another happy ending, ptsd nightmares and/or indoctrination aside.

Then again, I was disappointed in the first ME game by the fact that distress calls and side missions would pretty much just wait around until you got to them. The opening cinematic that showed different distress calls popping up on the map made me think that my choices would have a bigger effect than whether or not I received an email.

 

[Megalodon]

Aside from the few hype things from Casey Hudson and whoever else about Mass Effect 3, I can't find anything saying the ME franchise was being touted for how your choices would matter in the end.

People on the internet say that from day one, the franchise was about how your choices would impact the ending. From the first game. I want evidence of that. Because the ending of the first two games is always functionally the same no matter what happens, unless Shepard dies during the suicide mission (which as the OP already helpfully pointed out, means that save can't be transferred to ME3 so it doesn't matter either).

Quite frankly, I'm pretty impressed with what they managed to do. I never expected them to be able to make an ending that took into account every single action every single player performed over the course of one, two, or three separate games. Come on, that's unrealistic. But the amount of references, the amount of callbacks, the amount of things that can be just a little different per game astounds me, and means I'm always finding one or two small new things throughout each subsequent playthrough. Combined with the fact that, to me, Mass Effect was always about how your actions sculpted the world around you as you traveled within the predetermined plot, yeah, it didn't surprise me when the ending of the franchise ended up being what it was. They wrote themselves into a corner from the very first game anyway, because the Reapers had the same problem the Borg did in Star Trek.

People on the internet say many things, hyperbole is king. I don't know how ME 1&2 were marketed, and didn't find out about 3 until after I'd completed it. However, can you blame people for believing the guy in charge of making the game for saying that the game will be a certain way, and then getting pissed off when they find out the finished game does not match up with what they were told?

You're right about the amount of callbacks in the game, even if it does result in some weird EMS values (like how shepard's friends, all 12 or so of them, are a greater war asset than entire fleets). But ultimately the ending will be the last thing people experience in the game, and so has a greater effect on how someone reacts to the game. And ME3 ending with starchild speech you couldn't argue against/question (which the EC didn't remedy in any worthwhile way imo) and then be given a "choice" of 3 functionally identical endings left a bad taste in many mouths.

The principal problem with the ending was that a great many people thought it was shit. Having realised it was shit, the claims about choice, especially by Hudson with the "no A,B or C crap", became ammunition to be used in the process on complaining and calling Bioware's bullshit in light of the game they delivered.

While you're right about writing themselves into a hole with the Reapers. It did surprise me that they tried to change gears in tone to "bittersweet sacrifice" in the third game. If that's the tone you want in your series, don't end the second chapter with a winnable, everybody lives "suicide mission". And don't change tone mid-series, it will piss off people that liked the earlier tone (like me).

 

[MysticSlayer]

I think the effects that your choices have in Mass Effect have a greater psychological bearing than explicit one. For instance, the Krogan will always have a leader when you visit them on Tuchanka, but anyone who made a connection to Wrex in Mass Effect will genuinely appreciate seeing him as the leader as opposed to Wreav, whom the player never made a connection with. The same with seeing Mordin as the Salarian insider as opposed to Padok. Even the ending seemed psychological, as I know my final choice was based on the information I had gathered throughout the series and was effected by the choices I had made, even if those choices only affected me psychologically.

Other choices are more explicit, such as the way that you deal with the genophage. Whether or not Wrex lived through Mass Effect would have an impact on whether or not the Krogan discover that you sabotaged it. Also, whether or not you destroyed Maelon's work in ME2 would determine whether or not Eve lived in ME3. If both Wrex and Eve die, then you have a chance of saving Mordin while getting both the Salarian and Krogan support without ever having to deal with the consequences of your actions. Obviously, this whole ordeal was influenced far more by your choices.

Ultimately, there has to be some balance of the psychological affects of your actions compared to the explicit effects of those actions. Trying to expect every little choice you have to have major impacts on the story in a very explicit way is a ridiculous standard, as there would be too many branching stories for a writer to keep up with, especially when they're on the type of budget a game is on. BioShock Infinite had some commentary on this in its story (keep in mind, Ken Levine defended Mass Effect 3), and the idea of branching stories having potentially limitless alternatives goes all the way back to "The Garden of Forking Paths", a short story by Jorge Luis Borges.

For me, all I want is to know that I'm feeling some impact to my actions. Sure, not all of those choices have a major impact on the story, but as I indicated above, I very much appreciated letting Wrex live on Virmire and doing what needed to be done to let Mordin live through the suicide mission. To me, Mass Effect is probably the best example of a series I've played where my choices kept feeling like they had an impact over time. The Walking Dead was also good, but it was so condensed compared to Mass Effect that it just seemed much easier to feel that impact, given it was throwing itself at your every 30 minutes as opposed to ever few hours, if even that. As for BioShock and Fallout...yeah, I don't view those as great examples, as I hardly ever felt the impact of my actions except for when they occur and at the end of the game, and those were themselves far less impacting than in Mass Effect or The Walking Dead.

 

[BM19]

Yeah, it's mostly an illusion, but while some things are going to happen regardless, what about the characters themselves? They can change a lot depending on your level of involvement with them, and honestly its the characters that I care about most in the series.

Sure, there might not have been a cutscene telling me explicitly, but I still know that somewhere, Jack is waiting on Earth for Renegade Sheperd to come back, knowing that he's too tough a bastard to let a simple thing like the Reapers get between them.
I know that somewhere out the Oriana Lawson is making a new life, carrying the memory of her sister and her protector along with her.
I know that Zaeed is off in some dive bar, drinking away his reward money and telling anyone who'll listen about the time that he saved Sheperd's ass during that one firefight.
I know that somewhere Grunt is still looking for anyone strong enough to best him and live up to the clan Sheperd set up -- his first home.
I know that somewhere out there, Wrex is still in charge of the Tuchanka expansion effort, remembering Sheperd's sacrifices to cure the genophage, knowing that it was Sheperd's dedication to his crew that pushed Mordin to save the Krogan, even at the cost of his own life.
I know that Garrus is still out there somewhere, drifting, missing his best friend and sharpening his sharpshooting skills for the day Sheperd comes back from the dead again.
And I know that some time in the future, Tali is going to have a moment of silence for her fallen commander and unrequited love as she steps onto her homeworld with the first colony he helped her establish.

Those moments aren't shown, but they only have the possibility to exist because of your choices.
And dammit if that doesn't make it still worth it.

 

[Nomanslander]

For instance, the Krogan will always have a leader when you visit them on Tuchanka, but anyone who made a connection to Wrex in Mass Effect will genuinely appreciate seeing him as the leader as opposed to Wreav, whom the player never made a connection with.

Actually in the second game, I was pretty much lead to believe if any Krogan could reunite the clans, it would be Wrex. It wasn't as if there was throne waiting for Wrex this entire time that would place him as chieftain of his entire race. The Krogans up til the second game were pretty much scattered and divided among each other. More likely to be bought out as outworld mercenaries than to stick to Tuchanka and attempt to maintain a society. In ME1, Wrex was a jaded character that had lost hope in his people after the events that took place in him killing his own father. My feelings of ME1 were that I as Shepard brought some confidence and hope back into his spirit during the events of that game, which eventually lead him back to Tuchanka to try and reunite the clans and make something more if his people than hired gun. Out of all the Krogan in the universe, Wrex was one of the few that deep down really cared and have the drive to do this.

This was how I felt about it at least.

But wait... there's a brother? And he also reunites the clans and... the guys a prick and doing this for selfish reasons and...

??

Okay, GTFO!

Yeah... all I'm saying is, this substituting of characters eventually ends up completely undermining just how important characters in this game are and the choices you make that effect their lives.

Think about it like this... if you went back to Tuchanka in the second game and saw a Krogan world divided by civil war, and a race bordering on extinction... well, you'd realize just how important Wrex really was and became to this universe, and realize how much worse it is with him gone. Then realize how much the experience is cheapened with the existence of Wreav.

 

[MysticSlayer]

For instance, the Krogan will always have a leader when you visit them on Tuchanka, but anyone who made a connection to Wrex in Mass Effect will genuinely appreciate seeing him as the leader as opposed to Wreav, whom the player never made a connection with.

Actually in the second game, I was pretty much lead to believe if any Krogan could reunite the clans, it would be Wrex. It wasn't as if there was throne waiting for Wrex this entire time that would place him as chieftain of his entire race. The Krogans up til the second game were pretty much scattered and divided among each other. More likely to be bought out as outworld mercenaries than to stick to Tuchanka and attempt to maintain a society. In ME1, Wrex was a jaded character that had lost hope in his people after the events that took place in him killing his own father. My feelings of ME1 were that I as Shepard brought some confidence and hope back into his spirit during the events of that game, which eventually lead him back to Tuchanka to try and reunite the clans and make something more if his people than hired gun. Out of all the Krogan in the universe, Wrex was one of the few that deep down really cared and have the drive to do this.

This was how I felt about it at least.

But wait... there's a brother? And he also reunites the clans and... the guys a prick and doing this for selfish reasons and...

??

Okay, GTFO!

Yeah... all I'm saying is, this substituting of characters eventually ends up completely undermining just how important characters in this game are and the choices you make that effect their lives.

Think about it like this... if you went back to Tuchanka in the second game and saw a Krogan world divided by civil war, and a race bordering on extinction... well, you'd realize just how important Wrex really was and became to this universe, and realize how much worse it is with him gone. Then realize how much the experience is cheapened with the existence of Wreav.

Conversely, we never really had any meaningful interaction with Krogan outside of Wrex during the first game. Though his motivation was very clear, we really never interacted with other Krogan to understand if they also had a reason to want to unite them, or if they had the drive and means to do it. Obviously, Wrex was the best option, but that doesn't necessarily make him the only option.

I understand wanting to see some more differences based on your choices, such as with Tuchanka, and I will admit that it would have been nice to see some greater changes to the story as a result of your actions, but, for me at least, Mass Effect did enough to make it feel like I was actually interacting with the world and that my choices had some effect, whether big or small.

 

[Frotality]

Bioware games in recent years have an illusion of choice. I think it was their changed mindset after EA acquired them. DA:O and Mass Effect were made before EA owned them. The games that came after were made differently. They had less development time and it really shows. "Choice" is now just an advertising buzz word that they use now.
As for me?

The Mass Effect trilogy is fascinating to study. The first game is so wildly different from the other 2. It was a space opera where you play a blank slate character and the game was centered around humanity in a new frontier and what its place in the galaxy should be. It was a game that fully embraced its RPG roots. The second one moved to more of a blockbuster. It ditched the sci-fi soundtrack and went with a orchestral score. Party members started wearing impractical outfits not suited to battle or alien environments and more emphasis was placed on combat. They began hand waving away things that were established in the first game (Cerberus being at the forefront).
In the third game, they started to define your previously blank slate character. Remember how you could choose between representing yourself as a member of the Alliance or as a Spectre first? Yeah, you are now Alliance to the core. Admiral Hackett, that faceless quest giver from the first game? He is a person that you really like and respect. And your character is haunted by nightmares of a kid you didn't save. And your character inexplicably cares about Earth and will do anything to save it. They stripped your character away from you and gave you one that fit the story they wanted to tell. They tried to give the game a very deep and complex ending (focusing on a theme they decide to put above all others for no explained reason) and made the game a full on drama piece. The series' biggest weakness for me is that it has no cohesive identity. The first game is so radically different from the third that it feels like a different team made it.

read it, learn it, live it. THIS is the biggest problem of the ME series, spelled out perfectly. the series has no identity or direction, the 3 parts so different in tone and objective that it was virtually impossible to ever make a satisfactory ending. bioware was cornered in an alley by an impossible task, and decided to shoot themselves in the foot in hopes of confusing and distracting it. ME2 was a great game, but i never liked it because it always felt like it contributed nothing to the plot established in the first and wouldve been much better branded as a spin-off. i knew with as little that actually happened plotwise and all the new permutations to consider ME3 was going to disappoint in some fantastic way... but apart from my shockingly accurate prediction ME3 was again an entirely different experience. i actually enjoyed it much more than 2 because in the back of my head i was just waiting to see how badly they attempted to resolve the whole thing, and i wasnt really expecting much. it isnt that the oft-touted choice mechanic never really panned out, its that bioware f**ked up everything else trying and failing to reconcile permutations with the reality of development, and ended up with 3 entirely different stories, one of which was expected to resolve the plot of the other two, a task akin to resolving the plot of a new hope and wrath of khan with the matrix: revolutions.

 

[zefiris]

The games aren't about choices.

We know that now. The issue is that the entire marketing previously focused on that was, indeed, about choices and that thr storyline was, in fact, not fixed.

Essentially, you're crying emo tears that people dare to complain when a company does fraudulent advertizing.


In your fanboyish whiteknighting attempt, you also fail to understand that good story n a rich universe is, in fact, not actually at odds with choices. In fact, the opposite is true. The problem is that companies don't want to give choice. The technology would be there.

They're not really RPGs in the original sense, which are based on stats and numbers.

Actually, that's not a RPG in the original sense. In the original sense, a RPG has no stats and is about playing a character.

 

[Savagezion]

Aside from the few hype things from Casey Hudson and whoever else about Mass Effect 3, I can't find anything saying the ME franchise was being touted for how your choices would matter in the end.

Bioware did that to themselves. Have a look at a sneak peek article for Mass Effect 1.

http://xbox360.gamespy.com/xbox-360/bioware-rpg-unnanounced/656234p1.html

Many were like that one and remember that at that time, you could count the amount of games the had multiple ways through a story on one, maybe two hands, on all consoles ever. Choices played a role in 1 for replay value as people saw it at that time because choice effecting the sequel was unheard of. People didn't even really fathom that and focused on choices being about being able to play through it again making different choices and seeing things play out a little different. I think Mass Effect delivered on that aspect.
However Mass Effect 2 made people's head spin.

http://www.gamefocus.ca/reviews/7544.html

By the time they got Mass Effect to the PC they already were marketing that 1, 2, and 3 would be interconnected by the choices you made and how important the choices you would make would be. This was ALWAYS touched on and emphasized in ANY article about the game from that point forward. You have to do a bit of digging to find these old releases but if you paid attention to Mass Effect at all during the height of its launches, how could you miss this? This was one of the main 3 flags being flown above the game alongside 'cinematic gameplay' and 'real time action RPG'. The action RPG stuff failed out of the gate, disappointing many. The cinematic thing seemed to be ok but I think just came off as nice cutscenes, but the cross saves were mind blowing and the promises just got bigger and bigger and delivery was never met. But, it don't really matter because people bought it, literally, in the end.

As for the OP, I can see where you are coming from. Mass Effect 1, I like as I always saw it as the setup. With 2, I was mildly disappointed but not drastically. Saw some warning sign but nothing that couldn't be recovered from by a really well done third. However, 3's initial marketing sent red flags my way left and right. The promises made me want it, but I always pay attention to the red flags when I see them and I saved myself from a major disappointment doing so. I would like for a game to come out and pull off what ME could have been. But we do have Obsidian while we wait.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

Now technically none of these statements are entirely false. But beyond "I'm not doing that side mission", there's no choice of planets to explore; Earth, Palaven's Moon Thessia etc. have to be visited.

That isn't entirely true. One can visit dozens if not hundreds of planets. It's just that most planets don't have anything interesting save a few hundred words of fluff text, a graphic, and, occasionally, a doodad. Indeed, there is an entire set of mechanics dedicated to exploring the galaxy after the reapers arrive.

The "unique experience of your own creation" bit is BS (and a claim that ME2 could defend better with the player-influenced suicide mission).

The player makes many choices that alter the narrative. From the big ones like the ones that determine the final outcome of the Geth/Quarian war to smaller ones that would inform an observer as to Shepard's character (For example, how combative are you about the issue of Krogran sterilization). Yes, the ultimate outcome is the same but to cry that the story as a whole was an immutable thing is patently false.

Even if you were to argue that choice only matters when it comes to the ultimate outcome of the game, several choices you make throughout alter the state of the galaxy for future generations. Even that final set piece moment has seven different ways it can play out depending upon player choice and performance to that point.

It is perfectly reasonable to decry the game because you don't like the story or the conclusion but to attempt to rail against it because of lack of choice is folly. Your choices did matter. They mattered in the moment, they mattered in how it shapes the perception of who Shepard is, they impacted the galaxy for untold generations to come. Just because all roads lead to the same final decision point does not mean all possible roads are the same.

And I doubt someone with no foreknowledge reads "multiple endings determined by your choices and actions throughout the game" and thinks "aquire arbitary score to determine colour of ending explosion" (although the EC narrations/slideshow dosomewhat help). Plus of course, the story doesn't really "branch" at any point.

The score is far from arbitrary. Things that would obviously assist the war effort raise the score while things that would hinder it detract. Given that this is an abstraction of the total military might Shepard is able to rally for the final battle, it seems perfectly reasonable. Moreover, logic would dictate having more fleets, more ships, more firepower, more information and so forth would likely favorably affect the outcome of the story.

 

[Megalodon]

Now technically none of these statements are entirely false. But beyond "I'm not doing that side mission", there's no choice of planets to explore; Earth, Palaven's Moon Thessia etc. have to be visited.

That isn't entirely true. One can visit dozens if not hundreds of planets. It's just that most planets don't have anything interesting save a few hundred words of fluff text, a graphic, and, occasionally, a doodad. Indeed, there is an entire set of mechanics dedicated to exploring the galaxy after the reapers arrive.

You may disagree, but I didn't feel like I visited Dekuuna in ME3, I orbited it and got an artifact. Again the marketing statement was technically true, but realistically the artifact search mechanic probably isn't what someone would picture if I read them that sentance.

The "unique experience of your own creation" bit is BS (and a claim that ME2 could defend better with the player-influenced suicide mission).

The player makes many choices that alter the narrative. From the big ones like the ones that determine the final outcome of the Geth/Quarian war to smaller ones that would inform an observer as to Shepard's character (For example, how combative are you about the issue of Krogran sterilization). Yes, the ultimate outcome is the same but to cry that the story as a whole was an immutable thing is patently false.

Even if you were to argue that choice only matters when it comes to the ultimate outcome of the game, several choices you make throughout alter the state of the galaxy for future generations. Even that final set piece moment has seven different ways it can play out depending upon player choice and performance to that point.

It is perfectly reasonable to decry the game because you don't like the story or the conclusion but to attempt to rail against it because of lack of choice is folly. Your choices did matter. They mattered in the moment, they mattered in how it shapes the perception of who Shepard is, they impacted the galaxy for untold generations to come. Just because all roads lead to the same final decision point does not mean all possible roads are the same.

I'm wasn't trying to decry the game, but rather point out some obvious marketing BS in the quotes I pulled to prempt the accusation I was taking advertising claims at face value. However, ME3 doesn't deliver a "unique experience of your own creation", but rather a mostly solid linear narrative with the occasional choice that will alter a speech later in the game. Most choices are converted to EMS then rarely mentioned again. Contrast a game like FTL, which I would say does deliver a "unique experience of your own creation". Again, not saying ME3's bad because of this, just that the marketing claim was BS, which is to be expected.

And I doubt someone with no foreknowledge reads "multiple endings determined by your choices and actions throughout the game" and thinks "aquire arbitary score to determine colour of ending explosion" (although the EC narrations/slideshow dosomewhat help). Plus of course, the story doesn't really "branch" at any point.

The score is far from arbitrary. Things that would obviously assist the war effort raise the score while things that would hinder it detract. Given that this is an abstraction of the total military might Shepard is able to rally for the final battle, it seems perfectly reasonable. Moreover, logic would dictate having more fleets, more ships, more firepower, more information and so forth would likely favorably affect the outcome of the story.

I call EMS arbitary because it is, thanks to a lack of explanation. What is one EMS? Why is the Destiny Ascension worth 70 points, while the Turian Blackwatch Team and Volus Bobing Fleet 75? Why is a Husk Neural Map, which the game claims could help soldiers civilains escape Reaper forces worth the same as an Asari Commando team (30). Why are a dozen of shepard's friends worth more than an entire division of troops? Don't get me wrong, it's a competant, if uninspired, mechanic, but the numbers are arbitary.