2 replies to this topic

[Angry Chocobo]

Does anyone else think the games would be better off without these? I'm talking about things like resolving arguments between squadmates while keeping both of them loyal, preventing Tali from being exiled without revealing the experiments, making peace between the quarians and geth, the synthesis ending, etc.

 

I know these options usually have some extra requirements but I still think they mess up what would otherwise have been difficult choices. It's strange too because apparently BioWare scrapped an option to save both Ashley and Kaidan exactly because of this yet they went ahead and added these options for a bunch of other situations.

[MrFob]

I am torn.

On the one hand, I agree, not having the "win win" options might have made the decisions a little more edgy and interesting in some regards.

On the other hand, in most cases, the options do really add something positive to the game and the characters.

IMO, for example with the squad mates in ME2, the behavior of the squad mates in conflict is a little childish and Shepard's persuasion option are the most sensible things for a leader to say. They are some of the few moments in ME2 when Shepard is not reduced to role of the dense idiot by a lack of dialogue wheel options (which happens so often, I have to cringe my way through half of the game), so for me, that's a good thing.

 

Similarly, if you take ME3 and the geth-quarian conflict, not having the peace option would have made this decision much more intense and it would also have made this plot arc into a much more narratively consistent build-up to the ending of the game. However, I also find it awesome that there is this one great thing that rewards you exclusively for playing the previous games in a certain manner. You can only get peace if you worked towards it through a bunch of decisions throughout the trilogy and that IMO really tied the whole arc together over all three games. It's something that could only be done in the last part of this trilogy and it would have been a shame not to capitalize on an opportunity like this.

 

In other cases, I am more upset that we didn't have a "win-win" option when it would have been so plainly obvious that there was one on hand. An example being the rachni queen in ME1. I have to let her die or let her go. Why can't I leave her in the cage for the council to decide her fate? Even worse, later in the game, Kaiden chastises me for not taking this option, which the writer just didn't make available to me for no obvious reason.

 

So yes, having win-win options is not always a great thing to have but in most cases in the ME trilogy, I am glad that - or at least can understand why - they are there. On the other hand, if you purposefully leave them out, you definitely need to explain to the player why they are missing.

[The One True Nobody]

"Does anyone else think the games would be better off without these?"

I don't play videogames so they can remind me about the real world. And I play Mass Effect in particular so I can feel a sense of accomplishment when I do manage to reconcile both sides of a conflict. I don't think of them as "easy way out" options, I think of them as taking the difficult path and succeeding, which is where Paragon playthroughs shine.

So, no, I don't believe the games would be better off without them. I believe it would just make them more cynical. If I want cynical, I'll play The Witcher.

 

The only time I feel it's a good idea not to have a "win-win" is in a case like curing the genophage, where to do the right thing your only sacrifice is the support of a party who believes holding military support hostage in exchange for screwing an entire species over is a good idea. This is actually one of the better moral choices in the series, since you do lose out on something practical by choosing to do the honorable thing, but the consequences of doing the honorable thing vary based on past choices in both ME1 and ME2 (if Wrex and Eve both end up dead you can even convince Mordin that curing the genophage is a bad idea, because frankly, at that point, IT IS). In this case not having a win-win makes sense, and still affords you an ending that allows you both the cynicism of a pragmatic betrayal and the warm feelings of winning as a paragon.

 

The ending itself, for all of its problems, does lack a "win-win" option, though. In the two endings that preserve all races of the galaxy, Shepard must make a morally dangerous choice and sacrifice him/herself. In the ending where Shepard can potentially survive and not make a great sweeping galactic change without the galaxy's input or consent, EDI and the geth are wiped out (this is confirmed in the ending--EDI's name ends up on the memorial plaque and all geth-related happy ending images are prevented from appearing). In other words, there's no perfect answer. And I am okay with that in this instance, since I can at least prioritize whose happy ending I want to give up--Shepard's or that of the synthetics in the galaxy. The Catalyst's choice is a part of the ending I actually have a relatively small problem with compared to everything else that happens in the last legs of the game...

 

" Why can't I leave her in the cage for the council to decide her fate? Even worse, later in the game, Kaiden chastises me for not taking this option, which the writer just didn't make available to me for no obvious reason."

Because they would have killed her, so it would be pointless; and because Shepard had no way of securing the lab to keep the Queen contained, so it would have been impractical. The Council gets on your ass about the Rachni decision no matter what choice you pick, but they never complain "You should have let us decide!" It's only ever, "BAW, YOU TOOK A BIG RISK" or "BAW, GENOCIDE!" You can't please the Council on that one. Which is why I usually leave Noveria for last... so it skips that Council call altogether.