I wholeheartedly agree with you on this one, grantedm there's always a limited to the extend the player can influence the narrative but up until Mass Effect 3 the series gave a quite reasonable impression to the player that their input was relevant.
Ironically enough, what Bioware did to Mass Effect 3 was exactly the oppostie of the desgin philosphy the use Mass Effect 1&2. The presentation here is part of series in which it is explained how bioware intended accomplish a cinematic narrative without often interupting player agency.
I hold no illusions that the player would ever be able to significantly affect the narrative. Key events still needed to happen, but how they happened (to an extent) and Shepard's reaction to it was something that needed to be in the players control. For example, I understand why I couldn't work with Cerberus in ME3, and why I had to work with the alliance. That said, the failing was that, especially compared to previous games, I had limited ablility to control how my Shepard felt about it, as well as a limited ability to define my Shepard and what he is about and how he's got a handle on things. And the game doesn't take a policy of neutrality (granted, it was never really like this, but it was more subtle about it in earlier games) with ideals either, which is another failing. The game lets you know what the writers (despite what interviews suggest) thought you should have done (which is why, more often than not, what you were 'supposed' to do was generally the blue upper-left dialogue option). The game wants you to think that you're standing as the pinnacle of moral righteousness serving in the alliance. I preferred it in ME1 and ME2 where there was a lot more complexity to all sides involved in the conflict of the story.
Player agency... arguably the worst casualty of ME3.
Retour en haut
