Reviews for Mass Effect: Retribution

The average rating for Mass Effect: Retribution based on 2 reviews is 2.5 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2010-11-21 00:00:00 Alan Smith If you'd like to see my reviews of the first two Mass Effect books click on the links: Revelation and Ascension. The first Mass Effect book, Revelation, was a way to get Mass Effect suited to the book world. It involved characters from the first game and acted as a prequel. The novelty of it was that you read about places you, technically, had been to (walked through, ran through, shot at people through, etc). By involving the characters we knew it was a test to see if Mass Effect could adapt to the written medium. And it succeeded. It was a load of fun and actually made the game deeper. You could never look at Captain Anderson the same since you knew so much about him from Revelation. It was a book that was canon that ADDED to the depth of the first game. The second book, Ascension, was a chance for the writer to expand the Mass Effect universe not seen in the games (well, at least at the time it was published, being published between Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2). This was a tough task mainly because, having taken place after Mass Effect 1, the setting couldn't be expanded on too much as there were literally thousands of scenarios in the game-play that were, likely, different for loads of people . The writer had to expand the universe but couldn't mention Commander Shepard with any specifics (like, if Shepard was male or female since s/he could be either in the game, etc.), if the Council lived, who was running things for humanity, etc. But luckily the universe was so deep that Ascension successfully created characters we cared about (or continued their stories, as is the case with Kahlee Sanders, who showed up in Revelation as well) and could isolate everything away from Mass Effect 1 when necessary. It also could utilize people and places we hadn't seen yet but would see in Mass Effect 2. There was a lot of freedom there. And, for the most part, the book was fun. I did wish though that we could have a Shepard book but. . .would they come out with 18 versions based on what you chose in, now, two video games???? (Shepard books are impossible because it would piss somebody off due to the options in the game-play). And as interesting as Captain Anderson is (who was not seen much at all in Mass Effect 2) and Kahlee Sanders, Mass Effect 2, when it came out, really turned up the drama and the darkness, creating situations that were/are compelling and frightening and changed the mythos entirely. Mass Effect: Retribution is much like Ascension, in which it is trying to expand the universe without touching the games. It worked in Ascension but, because Mass Effect 2 is out with that expanded mythos, Retribution is just frustrating. While we get to see what goes on in a Reaper's head and see Mass Effect 2 characters The Illusive Man and Aria extensively, this feels like a pretty pointless tale that doesn't add anything to the Mass Effect universe. And that's a shame. We do get to see Captain (now Admiral) Anderson and Kahlee again but Retribution ends up becoming trapped in the non-game mythology created in Ascension mainly because Retribution is held prisoner to it, since it can't encroach on anything from the game due to the multiple game-play possibilities and two games worth of mythology. So you just feel like you're cutting corners and AVOIDING situations in Retribution as opposed to being put in them. You also can't help but assume a big 'ol dues ex machina is gonna fall too so that, come Mass Effect 3, nothing that happens in Retribution effects the game-play. Ascension managed to bring the Illusive Man into the proceedings pre-Mass Effect 2 in limited but effective ways. In Retribution, since we have to see him so much (since he was only in small, unrevealing parts in the second game), we kind of learn too much about him. He does things in this book that completely destroy the mystery of his motivations in the game and will actually taint Mass Effect 3 a bit. Author Drew Karpyshyn had this problem in Revelation as well with the 'villain' Saren. In Mass Effect (the game), Saren is always portrayed as evil but it is possible for him to be redeemed come the end (due to the heavily established idea of Indoctrination by the Reaper Sovereign). And if you so chose that ending it created the possibility that Saren was actually as good as Shepard once was at one point in time. . .but Revelation makes Saren a fucking sadist and completely unsalvageable. Karpyshyn makes a habit of explaining too much sometimes so this isn't totally Retribution's fault. I like the idea of Mass Effect books. For the most part, they are fun and enjoyable and, in two out of three cases, they aren't simply throw-away media tie-in entertainment. These books appear, for the most part, to be canon to the universe but Retribution seems like a television episode while the other books and games feel like epic cinematic adventures. I'm interested to see where they go from here after the disappointment that is Retribution. They could keep following Anderson/Kahlee which, as Retribution shows, will be extremely limited, or they could focus on characters seldom seen (an Aria book might be interesting or, as I suspect, a book on the biotic child Gillian, introduced in Ascension, is a plausible and welcome possibility). But I do think that by trying to stay within the timeline of the games, which grow extremely complex as time goes on, I think the books will end up being dreadful. My real wish is to see the dense mythology depicted: perhaps a War and Peace like view of the First Contact War between Turians and Humans? An internal look at how the Genophage is effecting the Krogan? Prequels involving the Normandy and the Normandy II's crew? Possibilities are ripe but the current approach has to go unless it is DIRECTLY associated with the forthcoming Mass Effect 3. Mass Effect is too rich and deep for something as shallow as Retribution. Hopefully this is just a bump in the road and not a forming habit.

Review # 2 was written on 2011-09-13 00:00:00 Peter Wallingford Timeline note: Retribution is set almost immediately after the main storyline of ME2 concludes, but before The Arrival DLC. Which, I suppose, makes it canonical that The Arrival is post-game, even if you can play it through in the middle of the storyline. But it always worked better, from a story perspective, as a post-game adventure than a mid-game one. Retribution has a strong hook: The Illusive Man has infected Grayson with Reaper nanotech as revenge for the events of Ascension, the prior book. This is the most in-depth look at Reaper indoctrination we've gotten to this point. The concept of knowing that you're losing control of your mind and your body and are unable to stop or even slow the process is pure nightmare fuel. There have been glimpses of what this looks like in practice, but always from an outsider's perspective. Here's the problem. While Karpyshyn is a great hand at setting a scene, and he can create really memorable characters, he's not the best guy in the world for dialog and emotions. This is simply not as skin-crawlingly creepy as it should be, and as it would be with a writer who was better able to describe emotions, and details in general. That didn't stop me from enjoying the book, by any means. It's still Mass Effect, the plot itself was still enough to keep me interested, and Karpyshyn is still a decent writer. It just could have been so much better by somebody else.