Mass Effect Andromeda: Hardly Imagined

So do you want to "pick a side" or have "real negotiation"?

Having to "pick a side" in DA2 was one of the most frustrating things about it. If neither side is right or wrong, why force me to pick one when I'd rather side with neither? As for the ME examples, Shepard *can* pick a side or attempt to settle the argument by getting them to compromise (Tali/Legion) or put it aside for now (Miranda/Jack). Why is having both options a bad thing?

An inherent difference between the missions mentioned by the person to whom I was responding and your examples is that in the missions mentioned (Major Kyle and the one with Lord Darius), Shepard is already on a side and negotiating to achieve a peaceful outcome between his/her side and the opposing side.  In the Tali/Legion and Mirand/Jack arguments, Shepard is acting as a 3rd-party arbiter with the authority to command the parties and, thereby, just force them to end the argument without siding with anyone.  To put a commanding officer in a position where they would have to "pick a side" among members of their crew is not a good idea and I don't like that it's implemented that way in ME2 when the commander is not charismatic enough to settle the argument.  It'ls like they stripped his/her command authority away.

I understand that, but I care more about the story-telling. There being limits to Shepard's charisma is in my view, a good thing. I don't actually think that the way Shepard resolves those conflicts is bad; it does make sense. However the cost is that any further potential drama or conflict within the crew is lost. One might also keep in mind that sometimes a leader does need to pick one side or the other, because one side or the other might be too stubborn or resolute to submit to authority. This seems like a very real risk when we're dealing with an unstable and psychotic biotic, and with two individuals acting in the interest of their entire species.

To expand on my thoughts on this, I think one solution would be to split up where charm/intimidate apply. This happens rarely in the games but it should be more common. Some conflicts can only be resolved with calming diplomacy and understanding, others with only threats and harsh truth.


Then why don't you just play make believe in your head?

What I want is a good story, real stakes, and no easy solutions. I don't need a game to pat me on the back and tell me how great I am. I like stories that are true to life, and that means that sometimes solutions are elusive, difficult, or even missing entirely. 

Take it however you wish; after all wish fulfillment seems to be your priority here. I want good stories and good stories have conflict and drama. Certainly in an RPG there is some degree of player choice in how to interact with this drama, but evading the drama should not be an option. This is especially true in Mass Effect which was advertised as a science fiction action RPG where you'd "Make difficult choices" and then live with the consequences. It is far more interesting and has a greater affect on the player if they're forced to make a choice, to weigh it in their heads, to contemplate what their Shepard might think, what the companion or people involved might think, and then live with it.

Let's look at all the great debates in this franchise; all of them center around CHOICES, not the dodging of choices. There is nothing interesting to discuss or debate when you just circumvent the whole issue. A story is diminished when it is robbed of drama and conflict. 

What's a more interesting story? Tali is acquitted and her father's reputation is never tarnished and she is accepted as a hero among her people.

Or

She is exiled as the price of preserving her family's reputation, outcast from the very people she loves and wishes to see prosper. Where does she go from there? Will she ever regret that things turned out this way? (just ignore ME3 here)

Or

She is exonnerated, but but the father she loved is exposed as a traitor and written out of her people's history. She still has her people and is known as a hero, but her heart is broken. Will she still have the motivation to continue? Will she ever stop being angry at Shepard? Will Shepard accept an apology or has that bridge been burned? Questions questions. It's interesting. 

If the story went anywhere, you might have a point. But all roads lead to RGB so the "choices" don't matter.

But again, since the point is the journey, not the destination, isn't having all 3 choices better than having just 2? I've done them all.

Would you throw Kosta off the ship, and put him in the brig for what he did?

I would. But before I do that, I would remove Tali from the roster for pointing a weapon at another squadmate instigating a confrontation.

I don't recall seeing any of your posts about getting rid of Kosta.

So why make MEA if it repeats the same stuff from the trilogy?

I don't even turn it on anymore. I ship it off to Cerberus. Screw those damn dirty machines! -shakes fist-

Not everything is a binary zero-sum game, but that means that some things are a binary zero-sum game. So the mentality of, "You're with me or you are against me" is quite valid and practical in some circumstances.

Aye, that most likely is why dialogue is so limiting in most modern rpgs. The robust system you described would be an absolute wet dream, alas as you said, that would be a very niche game for a small playerbase. However, I think there might be a compromise. How about a dice roll to determine weather or not you convince Major Kyle? where the charisma provides a modifier, positive or negative? "But whats the point of that? you'll just keep reloading until you win" I can hear in response. Yes you can, but you don't have to. That's up to the player to decide how dynamic they want their experience to be. 

As you said, I wanted to shove legion into the airlock straight away after he betrayed the crew. It infuriates me to this day that I cannot. It upsets me that Dragon Age Origins is the last Bioware game where you can theoretically lose most of your party due to your actions. However, I also detest, in many cases, the Third Option. Because for me, the third option neuters any sense of tension or stakes. I hated how if I just leave Redcliff and come back after Mage tower I can remove any sense of difficulty for me in terms of what choice to make. Now I don't have to self reflect or put any real thought into it, because I can just take the obvious rainbows decision. Like-wise for the Rannoch choice. I cannot believe for one minute that after 300 years of hostilities, after all the millions of dead, that those two peoples are just gonna stop shooting each other because Shepard screams loud enough (and does the Geth a bunch of favors they arguably don't deserve). I'm sorry, there is no situation where I can buy into that possibility. To me it's either The Geth, or the Quarians, never both. Because yes, while not everything is zero sum, not everything is one or the other, but sometimes, sometimes, it is. 

Edit: When I first did Legions loyalty mission, I literally stopped the game for a WEEK, because I could not decide which impossible choice to make. Genocide, or Mass forced brainwashing. Both options equally horrible to me. That choice was beautiful, it was perfect. And I remember every second of that week I spent debating myself, cursing Legions processes for being unable to come to concusses. I LOVED how painful it was for me, and I openly cried, a week later when finally, with shaky hand and filled with self loathing, I selected Rewrite...