This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
Editor's note: Michael ruminates on the subtle storytelling differences between Mass Effect and other Bioware-developed role-players, and story-driven games in general. -Demian
While I was at GDC this past year I went to a lecture called "Get Your Game out of my Movie! Interactive Storytelling in Mass Effect 2" by Armando Troisi of Bioware. The one thing he said that stuck in my head since then was the idea of objective and subjective storytelling.
Basically, in a subjective story the player is the character, which is what you see in games like Dragon Age: Origins. The player often creates the character at the start of the game and is in control of that character's actions and decisions throughout.
With objective storytelling, on the other hand, the player is not the character. This is something you see in the Uncharted series, for example — the player is in control of Nathan Drake but can't really affect what Drake does in terms of the story.
Now this whole objective-versus-subjective storytelling thing came up in the lecture because, to paraphrase Troisi, Mass Effect only offers players snippets of text to describe what Commander Shepard is going to do/say, as opposed to the complete text of what the character will say (as in other Bioware games like Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic or Jade Empire), because the Mass Effect games tell an objective story.
Hearing that certainly helped explain a lot of the design choices that Bioware made in regards to how the dialogue system works, how Shepard progresses as a character, and why the Paragon/Renegade system is the way it is. The player's control over Shepard and her actions is akin to someone steering a raft in a quick-moving river: While you might have some say 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're ultimately headed….
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 Troisi considers this objective storytelling, I think that most people would probably say that Mass Effect 1 and 2 are subjective stories. We get to create Shepard; we choose Shepard's gender and looks, class, and even some limited details of the character's backstory. This, along with the dialogue options throughout, essentially gives the illusion of a subjective storytelling experience.
I think that's why players get so involved in the Mass Effect games, but it's also why, when we select one of the snippet dialogue options and Shepard says something unexpected, it breaks the illusion big time. Anthony Burch called this the "suspension of agency" — the player is willing to give up some control in exchange for deep immersion in the game world, but if your avatar does something unexpected, it's jarring.
I have to assume that Mass Effect's designers know what they're doing as they walk the fine line between subjective and objective, and players identify/see themselves as Shepard but don't have as much control as they do over their Dragon Age character. Which kind of makes me in awe of what they've done for two games and really looking forward to seeing what they do for Mass Effect 3.
Regardless, I think it' something that some game designers and writers can learn from — it's possible to have both subjective and objective storytelling in a game (sort of). And that a good mix of the two styles can produce something that manages to be more immersive than either alone.