The Indie Nerd: Why Mass Effect 2 Had The Wrong Idea *MAJOR SPOILERS*

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

In Mass Effect 2, as you probably know, you go on a "suicide mission" that involves you going to kill some stuff in a way that I don't really care about because that's not what this article is about. If you're interested, look it up or play Mass Effect 2. But anyway. In this, people can die, and will die - or at least that's how it's supposed to be. In the end, it turns out that all you had to due was stick your fingers in your ears and go "I'mma select the blue text now!" or "YEAH, *****, RED TEXT! YEAAAH!" And everyone would survive and be happy. And that actually really, really pissed me off because it reduced morality in the game to a stupid, stupid thing that encouraged you to, rather than accept the ambiguity that is morality, be an extremist, and actually kindof rewarding you for being stupid and ignorant and thick-headed to other people's opinions and insights, and rather just staying on a very "paragon" or "renegade" route.

There's a couple of Art Flash games on Newgrounds that I've really come to like, entitled "Loved" and "Every Day The Same Dream." Both have very clear-cut choices, but no real definition of what these choices do. Loved is about obedience and disobedience and such, while Every Day The Same Dream is kindof anti-corporate, boring 9-to-5 style thing as far as I can tell. I like them both because they both really work, and that they don't cop out with an ending like "HAH YOU WIN" in just a specific, stupid way, and as far as I can tell, there isn't ANY winning - but there really isn't any losing, either.

I can understand the option of saving everyone, but it should be hard, and should take effort, rather than being all about multiple-choice questions. Hell, I can think of how you could do it right now. A party member you have with you gets trapped with a bunch of enemies, really really strong enemies that are really really annoying and hard to beat, and you can either run or save them. Of course, you might be low on healing, they might be dead already, they might be your favorite party member, et cetera. Without any silly choices, and some shitty dialogue system, you're making decisions by yourself on morality. And if someone dies while you're going to save someone else, or you don't save them, it's not the fault of some multiple choice shitty-ass dialogue. It's all your fault, and that's how it should be.

Maybe I'm rambling, but, overall, I really think that Mass Effect 2 would've been much better if it was actual moral choices, rather than multiple choice questions on who you're going to support during an argument.

Any agreeing or disagreeing, or discussion, Escapists?

 

[Broken Orange]

That is my one problem with Mass Effect, too easy to stick all blue or all red. That is why I liked the morality of Dragon Age better, it is all grey. I hope they improve on that in ME3.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

Erm, doesn't your hypothetical decision to leave one and save another boil down to simple "multiple choice" as well? That's the problem with labelling games as "free roam" or "moral choice," since by it's very design a game is truly neither.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Erm, doesn't your decision to leave one and save another boil down to simple "multiple choice" as well? That's the problem with labelling games as "free roam" or "moral choice," since by it's very design a game is truly neither.

I guess it kindof is, but another thing I disliked about Mass Effect 2 was that you could only take two people with you... I was thinking on a larger scale, I.E. you either risk your whole squadron to save this character, or you definetely save your squad and leave the character behind. I.E, actual moral choice, as oppose to multiple choice questions that mean nothing.

 

[AC Medina]

While what you say is generally true, the game does have some grey area moments where it's actually (or, at least, I found it) incredibly painful to have to choose one over the other.

I'm mainly referring to the "What to do about the genophage" and "Should Quarians go to war with the Geth" questions.

And while your choices on neither of those seem to have any direct and tangible effect on ME2, it seems possible (or, knowing Bioware, even likely) that they will come back to haunt you in some way in ME3, just as some ME choices were reflected in ME2.

And I think that will be very neat.

 

[RobotNinja]

I just choose all red because Shepard looks like a Sith lord when he's evil

 

[Rarhnor]

I agree. Most of the choices are color coded however, due to the effect they will have in the next game. That would explain why reprogramming the geth was considered a paragon action, despite my own thoughts on the action. But i sincerely agree with you.

 

[Thedayrecker]

Yes the moral system in Bioshock (and a few other Bioware games) is quite a bag of shit certainly less than stellar. There is really no reason to be good or bad, except to unlock harder paragon or renegade choices, and that leads to playing as only a Paragon, or only a Renegade.

At least in KotOR your alignment affected what force powers you could unlock, and by extension, interesting choices in dialogue.

 

[Kimarous]

The morality system isn't the sole thing that keeps people from dying or not. Yes, it plays a key role in balancing a couple crew arguments, allowing both to remain loyal to you instead of picking an option they'll hate you for, but the majority of crew survival things is one's own strategic planning. Did you take the time to upgrade your ship or did you say "fuck that mining shit; I don't care"? Did you waste time before rescuing your crew after they were captured? Did you assess the strengths and loyalties of your crew before assigning them specific roles?

Moral choice system? That's just for keeping Miranda/Jack and Tali/Legion from biting each other's heads off... and even then, you can still save their lives with a little strategic forethought.

 

[JRShield]

Anyone played Alpha Protocol? The game sucked, but man, that dialogue system!!!

 

[Mr.Kitetsu]

While what you say is generally true, the game does have some grey area moments where it's actually (or, at least, I found it) incredibly painful to have to choose one over the other.

I'm mainly referring to the "What to do about the genophage" and "Should Quarians go to war with the Geth" questions.

And while your choices on neither of those seem to have any direct and tangible effect on ME2, it seems possible (or, knowing Bioware, even likely) that they will come back to haunt you in some way in ME3, just as some ME choices were reflected in ME2.

And I think that will be very neat.

pretty much summarised my thoughts on the subject
some choices are there to make you feel like a dick too
even when trying to play as a asshole

 

[Internet Kraken]

I also have many problems with the Mass Effect 2 renegade/paragon system. However, I find it odd that you brought up the suicide mission since that isn't really affected by this. That isn't to say the system isn't flawed though.

One of my biggest problems with it is that it goes against roleplaying. The ability to pass dialogue checks isn't based on a skill, but rather P and R points. You acquire these points by selecting P and R dialogue options. This means that unless you are constantly choosing only P choices and R choices, you're going to lack the points needed to pass certain dialogue checks. That's stupid. That discourages role playing, unless your role is blindly following the either the P or R choices, and there's another problem with that I'll address later. I shouldn't have to limit myself to this though.

But the aforementioned blue and red choices have their own problems, mainly with them undermining the complexity of the choices. For example, the conflict between Legion and Tali could have been a difficult choice. It forced you to choose between two squadmates. It forced you to consider how you valued each companion. And no matter which option, you choose, there would be dire consequences ...oh wait, we have the magical blue/red option that completley defeats the complexity of the choice by letting you have your cake and eat it. Wonderful! That shouldn't be in the game. Why bother making these difficult choices if you're just going to let us completely bypass them?

Third, we have the problem of there being no consistency among the P/R system. Generally, we could associate paragon choices as being calm and lawful, while renegade choices were aggressive and usually bended the rules. But there are several instances where this doesn't apply. Paragon choices can be aggressive and violate the law, while renegade choices are calm and obey the rules. That makes no sense. It basically means that P/R choices are only defined by whatever the writer considers to be "good" and "bad", which results in any character that follows these choices having a fucked up personality.

The system in the first game wasn't perfect, but it was better. You had to actually invest points into your speech skill to unlock the magical blue/red options. Plus there seemed to be a lot more consistency among P/R choices.

 

[SnowdensOfYesteryear]

Paragon choices can be aggressive and violate the law, while renegade choices are calm and obey the rules.

That reminds me of something else, though it's entirely opposite. It seems renegade was also more just the devvies being "BWAHA KILLZ," and then it would just be more "Loose Cannon Cop Interrogation" style. So if you wanted to threaten someone and saw a renegade option, thought "Oh, good," and pressed it, and PROCEEDED TO THROW THEM OUT A WINDOW... that kindof broke roleplaying, too.

 

[Coldman42]

Well i fucked up my first play through and two people died. Did everything i could but i done fucked up even with the blue and red choices. Second play through i got it right but that just goes to show that you can't just hit an insta-win by choosing the right chat option.

 

[Internet Kraken]

Paragon choices can be aggressive and violate the law, while renegade choices are calm and obey the rules.

That reminds me of something else, though it's entirely opposite. It seems renegade was also more just the devvies being "BWAHA KILLZ," and then it would just be more "Loose Cannon Cop Interrogation" style. So if you wanted to threaten someone and saw a renegade option, thought "Oh, good," and pressed it, and PROCEEDED TO THROW THEM OUT A WINDOW... that kindof broke roleplaying, too.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. The P/R "actions", I think they're called that, are a good idea, but they need to be refined. Mainly, there needs to be more indication as to what each one does. For example, after giving the credit chit to the C-Sec officer, a paragon action came up. Since I was playing a character who generally made paragon choices, I clicked. I then watched my character grab the Volus and C-Sec officer and shove his justice down their throat in a hammy speech. For me, this was completely out of character. There was no indication that the paragon action would cause such a ridiculous response, so I was in shock.

 

[Thunderhorse31]

One of my biggest problems with it is that it goes against roleplaying. The ability to pass dialogue checks isn't based on a skill, but rather P and R points. You acquire these points by selecting P and R dialogue options. This means that unless you are constantly choosing only P choices and R choices, you're going to lack the points needed to pass certain dialogue checks. That's stupid. That discourages role playing, unless your role is blindly following the either the P or R choices, and there's another problem with that I'll address later. I shouldn't have to limit myself to this though.

I initially felt the same way, but I think something needs to be said for consistency. For example, if you're generally a smooth-talker, a charmer, a paragon, etc. then randomly deciding to intimidate someone would probably be less effective than if you've consistently acted as a hard-ass, no? In the same respect, if you generally go around being a dick to everyone and then decided in one instance to be nice, would other people really believe your uncharacteristic gesture of kindness?

I agree that not having these options can suck sometimes, but I would think that if you've built up the reputation of being a paragon of virtue, your attempts to gain ground through douchebaggery would be a less effective means of doing so. At least, that's how I imagine they justify the system.

 

[Internet Kraken]

One of my biggest problems with it is that it goes against roleplaying. The ability to pass dialogue checks isn't based on a skill, but rather P and R points. You acquire these points by selecting P and R dialogue options. This means that unless you are constantly choosing only P choices and R choices, you're going to lack the points needed to pass certain dialogue checks. That's stupid. That discourages role playing, unless your role is blindly following the either the P or R choices, and there's another problem with that I'll address later. I shouldn't have to limit myself to this though.

I initially felt the same way, but I think something needs to be said for consistency. For example, if you're generally a smooth-talker, a charmer, a paragon, etc. then randomly deciding to intimidate someone would probably be less effective than if you've consistently acted as a hard-ass, no? In the same respect, if you generally go around being a dick to everyone and then decided in one instance to be nice, would other people really believe your uncharacteristic gesture of kindness?

I agree that not having these options can suck sometimes, but I would think that if you've built up the reputation of being a paragon of virtue, your attempts to gain ground through douchebaggery would be a less effective means of doing so. At least, that's how I imagine they justify the system.

The first game already solved that problem though. You could only put points into persuasion and intimidation after acquiring enough P/R points. That way, a paragon character couldn't just dump tons of points into intimidate and use those options. However, the required amount was low enough so that even if you didn't choose exclusively Paragon and Renegade choices, you could still fill one of the bars. The second game was much worse in this regard. Besides, as I mentioned at the end of my last post, there isn't even much consistency among P and R choices in the second game anyways.

 

[cerebus23]

i vary between bad guy and good guy depending on the situation, but mostly good guy.

bit of a problem in me2 and me1 is while the blue and red are clear paths you can take, they are not good indications of which way the convo will turn out like i picked some blue choices that seems pretty hard nosed and mean and turned the conversation the opposite way i was wanting it to go.

all the text choices are not real indications of what shepherd might say just indications of what you think he might say and then you can be suprised.

if they were to clearly spell out exactly what you were going to say then a non color thing would work out better since then there would be no guess work involved in what exactly you were going to say.

 

[Sephychu]

Paragon choices can be aggressive and violate the law, while renegade choices are calm and obey the rules.

That reminds me of something else, though it's entirely opposite. It seems renegade was also more just the devvies being "BWAHA KILLZ," and then it would just be more "Loose Cannon Cop Interrogation" style. So if you wanted to threaten someone and saw a renegade option, thought "Oh, good," and pressed it, and PROCEEDED TO THROW THEM OUT A WINDOW... that kindof broke roleplaying, too.

Oh yeah, that reminds me. The P/R "actions", I think they're called that, are a good idea, but they need to be refined. Mainly, there needs to be more indication as to what each one does. For example, after giving the credit chit to the C-Sec officer, a paragon action came up. Since I was playing a character who generally made paragon choices, I clicked. I then watched my character grab the Volus and C-Sec officer and shove his justice down their throat in a hammy speech. For me, this was completely out of character. There was no indication that the paragon action would cause such a ridiculous response, so I was in shock.

Apart from the above situation, which irritated me, I didn't have many problems with the system, to be honest. I thought the suicide mission was quite momentous, and had little influence from Paragon/Renegade decisions. It was more about the loyalties you had gained. I had a mate full of Renegade and Legion, Grunt and Jack still died.