Basically subjective storytelling is a game story where the player is the character, which is what you see in games like Dragon Age: Origins. In these games the players get to create the character, and they are in control of the actions and decisions of the character during the game.

While objective storytelling in a game is when the player is not the character. This is something like the Uncharted games, where the player is in control of Nathan Drake, but the player can’t really affect what Nathan does in terms of the story.

Now this whole objective versus subjective storytelling thing came up in the lecture, because (to paraphrase Mr. Troisi,) the reason why in Mass Effect you get only snippets of text to describe what Shepard is going to do/say, as opposed to the complete text of what the character is going to say like what you find in their other games like Star Wars: Knight of the Old Republic or Jade Empire is that the Mass Effect games are objective games. While their past games have been subjective games.

Hearing that certainly helped clear up a lot of the design choices that they made in regards to the dialogue system works, how Shepard progresses as a character, as well as why the Paragon/Renegade system is the way it is. It basically comes down to them saying that the player isn’t Commander Shepard, but rather the player’s control over Shepard and her actions is more akin to like someone steering a raft in a quick moving river. While you might have some control over where your raft goes in the river, to dodge rocks and other obstacles in the path, the river is really more or less in control of where you are going.

Shepard is always going to try and save the galaxy from the Reapers, regardless of what the player wants. What the player gets to do is decide if she’s a “renegade” or a “paragon” while she does it.

So while I can see why they say it’s objective, I think that most people (based on people I’ve talked to about this and my own experience,) would probably say that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are subjective. This is because as the player we get to create Shepard. We choose what he or she looks like, if Shepard is male or female, what class they are, and we are given some options to choose a backstory for them as well. This along with the dialogue options in the game in essence give the illusion of a subjective storytelling experience.

This is why I think that player’s are able to get so immersed in the Mass Effect games, but is also why when we read one of the snippet dialogue options, and what it says isn’t actually what Shepard does it breaks the immersion big time for the player. Anthony Burch called this the “suspension of agency,” where as they player you are willing to give up some of the control you want in order to be given better immersion in the game world. Which the Mass Effect games do really really well.

I have to assume that the Mass Effect designers know what they are doing, and that they are walking this fine line between subjective and objective with player’s identifying/seeing themselves as Shepard, but not being in as much control over her as they would be with their Dragon Age character. Which kind of makes me both in awe of what they’ve done for two games, and also makes me really look forward to seeing what they do for Mass Effect 3.

Regardless I think that’s it something that some game designers and writers can learn from, that it’s possible to have both subjective and objective storytelling in a game (sort of.) And that a good mix of the two could produce a cocktail that manages to be more immersive then either alone.

With only a few days before the release of ME2 I finally buckled down and decided to finish the first game since I had barely made a dent in it since I had picked it up. This caused me to finish the game the day of the release of ME2, so I finished ME1 then went straight into ME2. Which looking back on it now was maybe the best thing that could have happened.

Going right from ME1 to ME2 like that proved to be a really great experience, since you are playing with your same character from ME1 and it picks up right at the end of the last game so it almost felt like I wasn’t so much starting a new game as I was continuing onto the second disc of an epic game (I guess you’ll only get that reference if you played some of the long ass RPGs from the PS1 days when games like Final Fantasy VII came on 3 discs; I think FFIX came on 4.)

It’s also a testament to how well designed this series is. While ME2 does have better visuals then the original, everything still felt familiar, and looked consistent with ME1. It’s a great game, and I think that anyone who hasn’t played or finished ME1 should probably go and play that first, because you’re experience in ME2 will be all the better for it.

<Possible ME1&2 spoilers ahead?>

My one possible complaint with the game, although I’m not sure if it is, is that the ending doesn’t seem as fulfilling as it does in the first game. But as I noted I’m not sure its a problem with the game, but perhaps more a problem with Act 2′s.

See with ME1 it’s basically the first act of a larger trilogy long story. As such it’s more about introducing the player to the world of ME, as well as introducing the the overarching story. It did this through your pursuit of Saren and his goal of finding the conduit so that he can call the Reapers back to the galaxy. Thus the crux of the story is chasing after Saren to stop him, which serves as a very understandable goal.

ME2 though is Act 2 of this trilogy, so although it delves deeper into the world of ME, it also has to serve as a vehicle for mainly moving the overarching story of the games. Although the story feels somewhat less focused then in ME1 where you were set about stopping this one person who you could understand the motivations of, while in ME2 you are trying to stop the Collectors who you don’t really understand at all.

But even though you are trying to stop them, the missions you go on are generally not in pursuit of them. They are typically about building up your team so that you can fight them and win. Then when you do pursue them, or go to fight them, it’s generally on someone else’s terms and not your own. You generally seem to only have control over how you go about constructing you team.

As I was saying I’m not sure that this is so much the fault of the game, but more about where it falls in the overarching story, since they need to start setting the stage for the final battle while also trying to tell you an interesting story. So regardless of what you do I think that it no matter how you try and end an Act 2 game like this, you are going to end up leaving a lot open and leaving it feeling like you are just setting up Act 3 (the last game,) because that is what you have to do.

</Possible spoilers>

I have one more things I want to talk about in regards to Mass Effect, but I think I’ll save that for a separate entry, as I think this one is long enough, and that it can stand on its own.