Before I begin my critique, I would like to first state that I am a huge Mass Effect fan. I've followed this series since launch and it's one of my all-time favorites. I say this because of how easy it is to be labeled a hater. I am not. Also, I'm going to be putting down a ton of spoilers.
The first DLC released for the entire Mass Effect series was a self-contained adventure called Bring Down the Sky, which had Commander Shepard and his posse stopping a rogue group of terrorists from slamming an asteroid into a human colony world. The setup is simple; there is no major plot twist here. All-in-all, though, the DLC was good. Even the parts with the much-hated Mako were pretty good.
One of the most-loved aspects of the Mass Effect franchise is the ability to make choices, especially hard moral choices. Bring Down the Sky gave us one of those decisions. The setup is this: Shepard has stopped the asteroid, but the man behind the act, Balak, is still at large. You've got him and some of his henchmen in a tight spot. The engineers working on the facility at the asteroid are being held hostage in a separate room with a bomb. If Shepard tries to pursue Balak, he blows up the hostages. Pursuing Balak and sacrificing the hostages is the renegade choice. If this path is chosen, Balak is either captured or killed. The hostages die.
There is another option. If Shepard lets Balak go, the hostages live. There is no twist on how this plays out. Balak keeps his word. This is the paragon choice.
Years later, in Mass Effect 3, Shepard's decision comes back to him. If Shepard allowed Balak to live, then Balak returns in one of the sidequests. That sidequest plays out essentially the same, Balak or no Balak, but ultimately Shepard can score more galactic readiness points if Balak is alive. Choosing the blue option offers the greatest reward for Shepard possible. It is the right decision for the player, both from the game's morality system and from the greatest possible reward.
Mass Effect has been touted as a game that lives in the moral gray areas. Often, the paragon and renegade aspects are presented to us as not exactly right or wrong, but as two possible solutions to a problem. Usually the renegade choice is more extreme, while the paragon choice is more diplomatic. The paragon choice, however, is always the right answer. It is not always the more fun answer, but it is the right one.
And that's where my problem is.
When Mass Effect 3 comes around and all the cards are on the table, every single paragon choice nets you a greater reward. If you spared the Rachni queen, you get more points. If you saved the council, that's better for you too. If you spared the Geth, great. Saved the genophage data? Perfect.
How come none of the paragon decisions ever come back to bite you in the ass?
Let's go back to Bring Down the Sky. Imagine if the hostages had died no matter what choice you made. You choose paragon. Balak makes a run for it. But just as he escapes, he blows up the hostages. If you had made the paragon choice, the hostages would have died, but Balak would be captured or even killed. The outcome would clearly be better if you picked renegade, but the moral choice would still be the same but with extra weight to your decision.
And if Balak lives, he comes back to haunt Shepard in Mass Effect 3. Rather than being a nice little cameo who is ultimately helpful, imagine if his presence ultimately resulted in a net loss of galactic readiness points.
Through all of that though, you can still argue that Shepard did the right thing by picking the paragon choice. Isn't his job, after all, to try to save lives no matter what? Even if the hostages had died, you can still say Shepard did what he or she was supposed to do. Sometimes outcome and morality aren't the same. Choosing to do the right thing despite what might happen is still doing the right thing.
We can apply this type of thinking to other moral choices. The rachni queen is an excellent example of a decision that could have come back to bite you in the ass. What if she was totally indoctrinated and beyond help by the time you found her? That might have made for an interesting boss battle. Or maybe she makes the Reaper force stronger somehow, giving Shepard's decision galaxy-wide consequences It would at least have made for an interesting dichotomy in Shepard's decision making.
On one hand, the player has gained paragon points and gets to live with the comfort of knowing they didn't wipe out an entire species. But on the other, that decision has weight two games later. Just in terms of outcome, that way would have made the renegade choice better. Then again, isn't it always wrong to commit genocide? If you've played Mass Effect 3, you know that the Rachni queen decision is no decision at all. The only reason to pick renegade is because you want to be an intergalactic space douche.
There's a missed opportunity there. By Mass Effect 3, the renegade choice has degenerated to basically being the "dark side" choice from the Knights of the Old Republic games. In ME2 and 3, you even start looking like a Sith Lord.
One could argue that a new player still has to make these decisions because they don't know the outcome. But it becomes obvious through the course of the games that the paragon choice always results in the best ultimate outcome. Imagine if some of these choices would later come back to blindside the player. You think you've made the best call for everyone, but it just ends up making everything worse in the long run. Sadly, that never happens.
In the Mass Effect universe, morality and outcome are not separate. The nice guy, the paragon choice, always results in the best possible outcome. Sometimes, however, the morally correct decision doesn't always produce the best outcome. Sometimes actions have consequences, even the good ones. Mass Effect is all about rewarding players, but I argue that doesn't always make sense, and it ends up hurting the choice-based narrative as a whole.
The decisions in Mass Effect are generally well done. However, a high number of them could have had a lot more weight. I've only given you two examples. Can you think of any more decisions that could have been weightier had they been done differently? Or can you name counter-examples?
The first DLC released for the entire Mass Effect series was a self-contained adventure called Bring Down the Sky, which had Commander Shepard and his posse stopping a rogue group of terrorists from slamming an asteroid into a human colony world. The setup is simple; there is no major plot twist here. All-in-all, though, the DLC was good. Even the parts with the much-hated Mako were pretty good.
One of the most-loved aspects of the Mass Effect franchise is the ability to make choices, especially hard moral choices. Bring Down the Sky gave us one of those decisions. The setup is this: Shepard has stopped the asteroid, but the man behind the act, Balak, is still at large. You've got him and some of his henchmen in a tight spot. The engineers working on the facility at the asteroid are being held hostage in a separate room with a bomb. If Shepard tries to pursue Balak, he blows up the hostages. Pursuing Balak and sacrificing the hostages is the renegade choice. If this path is chosen, Balak is either captured or killed. The hostages die.
There is another option. If Shepard lets Balak go, the hostages live. There is no twist on how this plays out. Balak keeps his word. This is the paragon choice.
Years later, in Mass Effect 3, Shepard's decision comes back to him. If Shepard allowed Balak to live, then Balak returns in one of the sidequests. That sidequest plays out essentially the same, Balak or no Balak, but ultimately Shepard can score more galactic readiness points if Balak is alive. Choosing the blue option offers the greatest reward for Shepard possible. It is the right decision for the player, both from the game's morality system and from the greatest possible reward.
Mass Effect has been touted as a game that lives in the moral gray areas. Often, the paragon and renegade aspects are presented to us as not exactly right or wrong, but as two possible solutions to a problem. Usually the renegade choice is more extreme, while the paragon choice is more diplomatic. The paragon choice, however, is always the right answer. It is not always the more fun answer, but it is the right one.
And that's where my problem is.
When Mass Effect 3 comes around and all the cards are on the table, every single paragon choice nets you a greater reward. If you spared the Rachni queen, you get more points. If you saved the council, that's better for you too. If you spared the Geth, great. Saved the genophage data? Perfect.
How come none of the paragon decisions ever come back to bite you in the ass?
Let's go back to Bring Down the Sky. Imagine if the hostages had died no matter what choice you made. You choose paragon. Balak makes a run for it. But just as he escapes, he blows up the hostages. If you had made the paragon choice, the hostages would have died, but Balak would be captured or even killed. The outcome would clearly be better if you picked renegade, but the moral choice would still be the same but with extra weight to your decision.
And if Balak lives, he comes back to haunt Shepard in Mass Effect 3. Rather than being a nice little cameo who is ultimately helpful, imagine if his presence ultimately resulted in a net loss of galactic readiness points.
Through all of that though, you can still argue that Shepard did the right thing by picking the paragon choice. Isn't his job, after all, to try to save lives no matter what? Even if the hostages had died, you can still say Shepard did what he or she was supposed to do. Sometimes outcome and morality aren't the same. Choosing to do the right thing despite what might happen is still doing the right thing.
We can apply this type of thinking to other moral choices. The rachni queen is an excellent example of a decision that could have come back to bite you in the ass. What if she was totally indoctrinated and beyond help by the time you found her? That might have made for an interesting boss battle. Or maybe she makes the Reaper force stronger somehow, giving Shepard's decision galaxy-wide consequences It would at least have made for an interesting dichotomy in Shepard's decision making.
On one hand, the player has gained paragon points and gets to live with the comfort of knowing they didn't wipe out an entire species. But on the other, that decision has weight two games later. Just in terms of outcome, that way would have made the renegade choice better. Then again, isn't it always wrong to commit genocide? If you've played Mass Effect 3, you know that the Rachni queen decision is no decision at all. The only reason to pick renegade is because you want to be an intergalactic space douche.
There's a missed opportunity there. By Mass Effect 3, the renegade choice has degenerated to basically being the "dark side" choice from the Knights of the Old Republic games. In ME2 and 3, you even start looking like a Sith Lord.
One could argue that a new player still has to make these decisions because they don't know the outcome. But it becomes obvious through the course of the games that the paragon choice always results in the best ultimate outcome. Imagine if some of these choices would later come back to blindside the player. You think you've made the best call for everyone, but it just ends up making everything worse in the long run. Sadly, that never happens.
In the Mass Effect universe, morality and outcome are not separate. The nice guy, the paragon choice, always results in the best possible outcome. Sometimes, however, the morally correct decision doesn't always produce the best outcome. Sometimes actions have consequences, even the good ones. Mass Effect is all about rewarding players, but I argue that doesn't always make sense, and it ends up hurting the choice-based narrative as a whole.
The decisions in Mass Effect are generally well done. However, a high number of them could have had a lot more weight. I've only given you two examples. Can you think of any more decisions that could have been weightier had they been done differently? Or can you name counter-examples?
I originally posted this on my blog, wesleyjulian.com [http://www.wesleyjulian.com/?p=160], and I'd be thrilled if you checked it out! There are no ads on my blog; this is not an attempted money-grab