Mass Effect 2 and a Game's IQ

I despised Mass Effect 2. And I'll tell you why, my expectations for what a "Mass Effect" game was weren't met with the second; or at least that's part of the reason. When I played the first Mass Effect 1 I enjoyed it a whole lot. Or more specifically one of the things I enjoyed about it was that it didn't pull any punches when it came to complexity. In fact it punched you right in the face with it. No tutorial in a game with multiple interactions, paths, stats, upgrades, new equipment, etc. It never occurred to me when playing that anyone would be either bothered nor have even the slightest trouble with this. Then again I didn't, and I was only thinking about myself, why shouldn't I? I wasn't the designer.

The point is that when Mass Effect 2 came along the designers DID think of that. And, it would seem to me, they took the easy route out of it. Rather than try to explain the complexity to people they just tossed it out. Now, I can suspend my disbelief well enough, but when linear boxy corridors have giant flashing arrows pointing me the right way it gets rather hard. But more than that, it was that I hadn't EXPECTED giant flashing arrows to point me in the right way. I can get through Halo 1, and recently did in Anniversary (The Halo 1 HD remake), with arrows on the ground that point me in the right way. Because, for one, they aren't as flashy or obvious. For a second, they were actually useful. Halo 1 is a bit legendary for its byzantine and confusing looking levels, who's interiors all look the same. For a third, I didn't expect anything from Halo 1 when I played it the first time, so when it showed up I accepted them easily.

But, when I started up Mass Effect 2 I was treated like an idiot. "Good boy, go here, follow the shiny lights!" I know that already! Its the only way I CAN go, and some non player character back there told me to go this way. But they gave me giant, shiny, and fairly close to non diagetic arrows just in case I had so little of an attention span that I got lost in an area carefully designed to never get anyone lost.

Now, this was a rude shock because I hadn't expected this. But even if it wasn't a shock I still wouldn't have enjoyed it. That this was from a series that just previously had treated me like an intelligent, gameplaying adult added to the insult however. The problems I had with the game continued on in much the same fashion. The ovearching story had gone from, if not a soaring science fiction space opera, then at least from a space opera that tried to be intelligent to one that didn't make the pretense of bothering.

There's no science behind Mass Effect 2's story, there isn't even any basic logic or consistency. Either with the first game or even itself. Meeting set expectations is an important part of keeping anyone interested in a story happy. It can be hard to do, promising stories and writers and television shows and etc. have bombed out because of a failure to do such. As a writer myself I can appreciate the challenge. But this neither obviates the fact that people do have them, nor the sorry drop in quality of the actual plot of Mass Effect 2.

The entire game, in fact, felt like it dropped a significant portion of its IQ in comparison to the first game. And this is something I've noticed happen in a lot of games over the past several years. Just take another Bioware game, Dragon Age 2. Much more despised by a much larger percentage of fans than Mass Effect 2, but both a significant drop in IQ and a failure to meet the expectation of fans of the first game are also present.

In Dragon Age 2 the fans weren't expected to understand how they could "level" up their own allies, or even equip them, among other foibles. And that's what I mean by "IQ". I mean the mental input required of players to advance in the game. No, I'm taking that back and not deleting it. What I mean is the level of mental input that a player even CAN put into a game. I'm going to make an angry an obvious statement now

YOU IDIOTS! Mental input is FUN for some people. There are games based solely ON mental input. Chess, Go, etc. Any game developer that does this deserves a quick thwack with a ruler. I perfectly understand the need for sales numbers. You are after all working at a job, and if you are high up or working at a good job you are going to be seeing some of that money directly from those sales numbers. So when I say you are cheerily shooting yourself in the proverbial foot I say it in the hopes that you are paying attention.

I will repeat, mental input can be fun! I know, it's not fun for everyone. Which is why there's the temptation to take it out. Lowest common denominator, natch. But games are interactive, you don't need to target "JUST" the lowest common denominator with your game. You or anyone is perfectly capable of allowing mental input as an option. Perhaps it could be a different way of getting through your level. Perhaps it could be a way of bettering whatever "score" you may have in your game, whether it be a "stat point" "high score" or other reward.

A practical example. Blizzard has announced that for its third iteration of Diablo players will not be able to control where there stat points go when they level up. This was apparently done to prevent players from creating useless characters, statswise. If Blizzard just sets players on the best possible path to begin with then there's no trouble. But, if you understand what I'm trying to say then I hope you'll have asked the obvious question, "Why don't they just make it an option?"

Well... why don't they? If a player wants that control, if a player wants to attempt to use his own mind, why should any developer or publisher stop them? You are giving the player what they want, without taking away the advantage I already stated. Now everyone can get what they want, for what is no doubt relatively minimal effort. I'm certain there's an argument to make against such. No doubt edge cases will crop up where people choose to alot points themselves, and then do a bad job of it, and then don't have fun, and then cost Blizzard sales down the line somehow.

But surely the simple act of putting the option in still counts as a boon to enough players to outweigh such. There's obviously no such thing as a "perfect" solution to these sorts of design issues that gets everyone the most enjoyment (and hopefully subsequent sales) out a product. But before a game designer goes down one route, they should remember that games are interactive, and thus it may be possible for multiple routes to be taken.

Wow, that was a long rant, and it swerved in and out and around. I do these things off the top of my head, pouring out through the keyboard and onto the internet as they come. Never the less I hope you enjoyed reading, and just maybe learned at least part of something. Welcome to Game Critique. I'm Sean Thompson, Aka Frenetic Pony, signing off of my first post.