184 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Bucky_McLachlan wrote...

You obviously do not understand the argument.

No one would dispute that Kaidan could've been a Spectre too if only he had all the experience and qualifications of Commander Shepard. It's not a question of who is capable of what, the problem is that Mass Effect 2 has really bad story problems, much of which could have been eliminating if not for Shepard being killed and brought back for completely illogical reasons. They could've had Shepard survive the attack on the ship with serious injuries.

I understood the argument. Smudboy's point was very clear and well-explained. Here was his conclusion underlined.

In ME2, Shepard is completely replaceable.
In ME1, Shepard is integral to the plot.

And here were the premises (again underlined)on which he based his conclusion.

After you create your character in ME1, Hacket, Anderson and Udina are discussing who to choose to lead the ground team for the Eden Prime/Prothean becon mission.  This is also for Nihlus to evaluate Shepard in action, to see if he is a viable candidate for the Spectres/the human/Alliance seat on the Council.  Aside from Anderson, Shepard is the only N7 ranked Alliance soldier, and Nihlus is impressed by their military record.

Am I understanding you both correctly so far? I have no problem with his premises. I have a problem with his conclusion that Shepard is integral to the plot. Shepard becomes a Spectre because he is the most qualified. If he were removed from the plot Udina/Anderson would have chosen the person who was most qualified after.

[*]Cerberus retconning, although Shepard could've still joined with them after getting patched up since the Council and Alliance refuse to help him go against the real threat and at least the player could have felt more like it was their choice to do this rather than being forced to do it because their character died.

I just want to be clear here. What is the definition of a retcon?

You see the problem people are having here has everything to do with the sh*tty story, and the problem with the story is...well a lot of things, but the specific problem here is the only reason Shepard is even involved is because some secret shadow organization spent millions to bring this dude back from the dead because he gives good speaches and ****. 

 I just rewatched the clip where Shepard and the Illusive Man talk for the first time. Illusive Man mentions three specific points. Watch 2:33- 5:29.

1. "You've seen it yourself. You bested all of them (Saren/Sovereign/Geth). That's just one reason we chose you. "

2. "Maybe you got their (Reapers/Collectors) attention when you killed one of them.

3. "You're unique. Not just in ability but what you represent. You stood for humanity at a key moment. You're more than a soldier...you're a symbol. I don't know if the Reapers understand fear. But you killed one of them. They have to respect that."

On a general level it is also clear that Illusive Man wanted to choose the best for this role. He thought Shepard had the best qualifications despite his death and chose to put all his rescoures into resurrecting him. Is this not the same as Shepard being qualified to become a Spectre? In both games the criteria for selection seems to be qualifications.

Modifié par Il Divo, 15 avril 2010 - 05:54 .

[Astranagant]

Not a single character in the game is objectively or factually superior to Shepard.

Miranda, for one, is anything but perfect. Keep in mind that she was genetically tailored to fit the biases of her father. If you call that pug-face perfect, you've got some weird standards. She can't possibly be stronger physically than shep, and her blind, unquestioning loyalty to TIM and Cerberus rules out mental superiority.

Modifié par Astranagant, 15 avril 2010 - 05:54 .

[smudboy]

Il Divo wrote...
Am I understanding you both correctly so far? I have no problem with his premises. I have a problem with his conclusion that Shepard is integral to the plot. Shepard becomes a Spectre because he is the most qualified. If he were removed from the plot Udina/Anderson would have chosen the person who was most qualified after.

True, anyone the Council can appoint can be a Spectre, and Shepard is simply the best the Alliance picked. The Eden Prime mission was to prove Shepard's skills, and return the becon to the Citadel.

The becon vision does loosely tie into their psych profile, in that their War Hero/Sole Survivor/Ruthless psych profile explains they're mentally capable of accepting the vision, as Liara describes.  It's possible someone else could've accepted the becon, too, but we're not sure whether they'd recover from the coma (and we can speculate on that.)

Any character, object, or thing, is relevant to the plot if it advances the plot.  This is why Tali, Shepard, and Liara are relevant, where we can reduce them to simple devices (Tali-evidence, Shepard-Spectre-Normandy-Visions-Cipher, Liara-meld.).

 I just rewatched the clip where Shepard and the Illusive Man talk for the first time. Illusive Man mentions three specific points. Watch 2:33- 5:29.

1. "You've seen it yourself. You bested all of them (Saren/Sovereign/Geth). That's just one reason we chose you. "
2. "Maybe you got their (Reapers/Collectors) attention when you killed one of them.
3. "You're unique. Not just in ability but what you represent. You stood for humanity at a key moment. You're more than a soldier...you're a symbol. I don't know if the Reapers understand fear. But you killed one of them. They have to respect that."

On a general level it is also clear that Illusive Man wanted to choose the best for this role. He thought Shepard had the best qualifications despite his death and chose to put all his rescoures into resurrecting him. Is this not the same as Shepard being qualified to become a Spectre? In both games the criteria for selection seems to be qualifications.

In ME1.  1) the Alliance did choose Shepard in the same use TIM/Miranda do.  2) situations brought Shepard to be presented as a solution to giving what the Alliance/humanity wanted, as well as the Council, which made him a Spectre.  3) Spectre Shepard is granted the Normandy, and allows the plot to continue (authority and now ability to explore.)  4) with the becon visions, the Cipher, and then Liara's help, the plot continues on its way as the story unfolds.  The story builds upon itself, like assembling a map or compass, which is Shepard's brain, and in this crude analogy, Liara is the navigator.  It's true that if in 1) If someone else becomes a Spectre, they, or someone else could get the Prothean visions, and the plot can continue as is.

In ME2, 1) TIM/Miranda bring Shepard back for all those reasons you listed.  This is basic existence in the plot, (not the resurrection angle.  This was purely a marketing thing.)  All ME2 had to do was show us why Shepard is needed ONCE (or have a similar plot structure to ME1, building a map/unravel a mystery, because of Shepard actively discovering things that advance the plot.)  If we can't prove Shepard's existence, the reasons TIM/Miranda have then become farcical: 1) He's strong...so is Jacob, Miranda, your operatives, etc. 2) You killed a Reaper (how?) and your enemy might understand fear (what?), 3) He's a hero -- a bloody icon.  So?  The best that does is get discounts at stores.  Any businessman or shrewd thinker wouldn't spend 2 years and billions of dollars so he can hopefully play psychopomp with unexplained science-magic to possibly create Zombie Cyber Jesus.  And all Zombie Cyber Jesus does is whatever some good soldier could do.  It's ludricrous.  This could've been handled without a Deus Ex Machina device, or done later after we learn why Shepard is needed to be the protagnoist.  It's like reading a comic book of Spider-Man, but Spider-Man never does anything Spider-Man can only do, nor does he have any character development.  (So why the hell are we reading a Spider-Man comic?)

Nevermind the nonsensical plot structure, the 3 Great Reveals that have no application to the plot, general stupidity and illogic, and the massive plot holes concerning every main plot point.  It's putting glitz and glamour above story telling, which is a whole lot of "ho hum" and "wtf" as we plod along.

Modifié par smudboy, 15 avril 2010 - 11:27 .

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

 I just rewatched the clip where Shepard and the Illusive Man talk for the first time. Illusive Man mentions three specific points. Watch 2:33- 5:29.

1. "You've seen it yourself. You bested all of them (Saren/Sovereign/Geth). That's just one reason we chose you. "
2. "Maybe you got their (Reapers/Collectors) attention when you killed one of them.
3. "You're unique. Not just in ability but what you represent. You stood for humanity at a key moment. You're more than a soldier...you're a symbol. I don't know if the Reapers understand fear. But you killed one of them. They have to respect that."

On a general level it is also clear that Illusive Man wanted to choose the best for this role. He thought Shepard had the best qualifications despite his death and chose to put all his rescoures into resurrecting him. Is this not the same as Shepard being qualified to become a Spectre? In both games the criteria for selection seems to be qualifications.

In ME1.  1) the Alliance did choose Shepard in the same use TIM/Miranda do.  2) situations brought Shepard to be presented as a solution to giving what the Alliance/humanity wanted, as well as the Council, which made him a Spectre.  3) Spectre Shepard is granted the Normandy, and allows the plot to continue (authority and now ability to explore.)  4) with the becon visions, the Cipher, and then Liara's help, the plot continues on its way as the story unfolds.  The story builds upon itself, like assembling a map or compass, which is Shepard's brain, and in this crude analogy, Liara is the navigator.  It's true that if in 1) If someone else becomes a Spectre, they, or someone else could get the Prothean visions, and the plot can continue as is.

In ME2, 1) TIM/Miranda bring Shepard back for all those reasons you listed.  This is basic existence in the plot, (not the resurrection angle.  This was purely a marketing thing.)  All ME2 had to do was show us why Shepard is needed ONCE (or have a similar plot structure to ME1, building a map/unravel a mystery, because of Shepard actively discovering things that advance the plot.)  If we can't prove Shepard's existence, the reasons TIM/Miranda have then become farcical: 1) He's strong...so is Jacob, Miranda, your operatives, etc. 2) You killed a Reaper (how?) and your enemy might understand fear (what?), 3) He's a hero -- a bloody icon.  So?  The best that does is get discounts at stores.  Any businessman or shrewd thinker wouldn't spend 2 years and billions of dollars so he can hopefully play psychopomp with unexplained science-magic to possibly create Zombie Cyber Jesus.  And all Zombie Cyber Jesus does is whatever some good soldier could do.  It's ludricrous.  This could've been handled without a Deus Ex Machina device, or done later after we learn why Shepard is needed to be the protagnoist.  It's like reading a comic book of Spider-Man, but Spider-Man never does anything Spider-Man can only do, nor does he have any character development.  (So why the hell are we reading a Spider-Man comic?)

Nevermind the nonsensical plot structure, the 3 Great Reveals that have no application to the plot, general stupidity and illogic, and the massive plot holes concerning every main plot point.  It's putting glitz and glamour above story telling, which is a whole lot of "ho hum" and "wtf" as we plod along.

I want to make one distinction before I fully respond to your point. Are we saying that Shepard (the character) is replaceable? Or is it the role of Shepard which is entirely unnecessarry? By character I mean the personality/figure which allows us to identify him as being Shepard. By role I mean "the function the character serves in the plot." I would say no role is truly replaceable. Someone has to investigate Saren. Just as someone has to stop the Collectors.

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 avril 2010 - 12:30 .

[Archereon]

justinnstuff wrote...

 Shepard's charisma is so powerful it rivals Jedi mind tricks. You don't want to defy Commander Shepard.

fix't

[smudboy]

Il Divo wrote...
I want to make one distinction before I fully respond to your point. Are we saying that Shepard (the character) is replaceable? Or is it the role of Shepard which is entirely unnecessarry? By character I mean the personality/figure which allows us to identify him as being Shepard. By role I mean "the function the character serves in the plot." I would say no role is truly replaceable. Someone has to investigate Saren. Just as someone has to stop the Collectors.

Within the scope of ME1, none.  (Alliance choosing whomever->the Eden Prime leader role->the beacon->etc.)  One could argue The Chosen is replaceable up until the Beacon, at most Spectre induction, because the plot involves humanity/the Alliance selecting a leader for the mission/the main plot.  The TouchedByVorlons character grants us the intrinsic knowledge that "things are not as they appear," as well as being an integral plot device.  It is then the prerogative of whomever is chosen as Spectre/Normandy to pursue Saren for the reasons the TouchedByVorlons character state.
Within the scope of ME2, both the character and the role, since the character and role of Shepard is unjustified, and have no plot relevance.  That does not mean that we don't need a leader to fight the Collectors: it does mean there are other ways to do so (which would be plot integral, which means changing the plot.  This is everything from re-writing the story, to simply making Shepard an active protagonist.)

Modifié par smudboy, 16 avril 2010 - 01:30 .

[lastpawn]

Well, let's see.
He's got the ability to command the loyalty of:

[*]A genetically perfected krogan, the most physically powerful, aggressive, and ruthless race in the entire galaxy
[*]A genetically perfected human, who is physically and mentally superior, is a brilliant tactician and a powerful biotic
[*]The most powerful biotic human in the galaxy who is so ruthless that she can single-handedly destroy space stations with ease
[*]An asari Justicar whose very presence can prevent enemy action and who is one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy [*]and so on[*]

Aside from that, I don't take it as evident at all that the characters you list are capable of killing Shepard, let alone easily killing him. Not to mention that you're either intentionally inflating them or weren't paying attention through the game.

Case point 1: Thane isn't the "galaxy's single deadliest assassin." He's "one of the best."
Case point 2: Grunt? Shepard can kill Wrex, and he can shoot Grunt down as a warning.
Case point 3: Samara failed to kill Nihilus, who was killed by Saren. Shepard killed Saren. Yet you take it as uncritical that Samara is somehow more powerful than Shepard.

And so on...

Modifié par lastpawn, 16 avril 2010 - 01:52 .

[lastpawn]

Terraneaux wrote...

Speaking of Shep's combat prowess, I wish there was an option to laugh patronizingly at Jack when she threatens you.

Great minds think alike...

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I want to make one distinction before I fully respond to your point. Are we saying that Shepard (the character) is replaceable? Or is it the role of Shepard which is entirely unnecessarry? By character I mean the personality/figure which allows us to identify him as being Shepard. By role I mean "the function the character serves in the plot." I would say no role is truly replaceable. Someone has to investigate Saren. Just as someone has to stop the Collectors.

Within the scope of ME1, none.  (Alliance choosing whomever->the Eden Prime leader role->the beacon->etc.)  One could argue The Chosen is replaceable up until the Beacon, at most Spectre induction, because the plot involves humanity/the Alliance selecting a leader for the mission/the main plot.  The TouchedByVorlons character grants us the intrinsic knowledge that "things are not as they appear," as well as being an integral plot device.  It is then the prerogative of whomever is chosen as Spectre/Normandy to pursue Saren for the reasons the TouchedByVorlons character state.

Ah. I appreciate the link. It gives voice to alot of thoughts I do have regarding character necessity.

But I'm still not certain why Shepard's character is irreplaceable. Remember I'm calling character "the personality/figure which allows us to identify him as being Shepard". What about his character is unique? The role he fills, certainly. Whoever touches the beacon and becomes a Spectre indisputably must stop Saren and the Reapers as your link points out. We cannot take this role out and have the same plot. But the bolded statement makes clear that the TouchedbyVorlons' character is replaceable prior to experiencing the change. What is not clear is why the character prior to the change cannot be any other than Shepard.
 
If Shepard did not exist, the Alliance would choose the second most qualified N7 candidate who would follow the same steps.

Within the scope of ME2, both the character and the role, since the character and role of Shepard is unjustified, and have no plot relevance.  That does not mean that we don't need a leader to fight the Collectors: it does mean there are other ways to do so (which would be plot integral, which means changing the plot.  This is everything from re-writing the story, to simply making Shepard an active protagonist.)

I understand how his character is replaceable. But I refer back to my definition of role "the function which the character serves in the plot". Shepard's role is the leader who fights the Collectors. That is not why Shepard must be the one to fill that role. You yourself admit that a leader to fight the collectors is necessary. Without one the plot structure changes. So is the Shepard role  replaceable?

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 avril 2010 - 01:58 .

[Sharn01]

If your asking if Shepard is needed for story purposes in ME2 I would say not really. I actually think the story was originally written for someone other then Shepard as a side story of Mass Effect and was tailored to Shepard later with a lame death and resurrection to force him/her to work for Cerberus. In ME1 however Shepard is required for the success against the Reaper's, but then so are some of the team.

If you are asking if the rest of the team are tougher then Shepard I would say no. Miranda is genetically modified, ok, so is every Marine in the Alliance, including Shepard. Shepard has also had cybernetic upgrades such as bone lacing and muscle replacement.

As far as we know Shepard is the only human in the galaxy that can fire the semi unique Shotgun and Sniper Rifle you get on the collector ship, most humans are not strong enough to fire them, and those that are would shatter their bones on successfully doing so.

That being said I think ME2 moved in the wrong direction with Shepard and the team. In ME Shepard and co. played a vital role in bringing down Saren and the Geth, and through doing do Sovereign, without them the galaxy would have fell, but they did not do it alone.

In ME2 the threat was defeated by Shepard and his/her team of super friends, some with cliched and overdone intro movies who defeat the enemy by going around the galaxy and shooting them until they are all dead. They did this all by themselves for the most part, and the galaxy probably would have been fine if they had done nothing.

Modifié par Sharn01, 16 avril 2010 - 02:01 .

[lastpawn]

GodWood wrote...
Jack could kick Shepard's arse.

Although I do know people like to believe that their Shepard is simply stronger than everyone else in the galaxy, its silly really.

Given everything in the game, it's silly not to. ME is unabashedly wish-fulfillment, and your Shepard is supposed to be the greatest in the galaxy. You might be looking for a differently story, but that's the way it is in ME.

[smudboy]

Il Divo wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
I want to make one distinction before I fully respond to your point. Are we saying that Shepard (the character) is replaceable? Or is it the role of Shepard which is entirely unnecessarry? By character I mean the personality/figure which allows us to identify him as being Shepard. By role I mean "the function the character serves in the plot." I would say no role is truly replaceable. Someone has to investigate Saren. Just as someone has to stop the Collectors.

Within the scope of ME1, none.  (Alliance choosing whomever->the Eden Prime leader role->the beacon->etc.)  One could argue The Chosen is replaceable up until the Beacon, at most Spectre induction, because the plot involves humanity/the Alliance selecting a leader for the mission/the main plot.  The TouchedByVorlons character grants us the intrinsic knowledge that "things are not as they appear," as well as being an integral plot device.  It is then the prerogative of whomever is chosen as Spectre/Normandy to pursue Saren for the reasons the TouchedByVorlons character state.

Ah. I appreciate the link. It gives voice to alot of thoughts I do have regarding character necessity.

But I'm still not certain why Shepard's character is irreplaceable. Remember I'm calling character "the personality/figure which allows us to identify him as being Shepard". What about his character is unique? The role he fills, certainly. Whoever touches the beacon and becomes a Spectre indisputably must stop Saren and the Reapers as your link points out. We cannot take this role out and have the same plot. The bolded statement makes clear that the TouchedbyVorlons' character is replaceable prior to experiencing the change. What is not clear is why the character prior to the change cannot be any other than Shepard.
 
If Shepard did not exist, the Alliance would choose the second most qualified N7 candidate who would follow the same steps.

Up to those two points, there's no argument why Shepard is integral.

The psych profile of the Shepard we choose, and the plot (Alliance selecting The Chosen) that leads up to the Beacon/Evidence/Spectre induction, is integral for those scenes to progress to the next.  It's like building a car to get to point B (Spectre Induction -- the rising action.)  The weak argument for who can survive being TouchedByVorlons could be included with being The Chosen, if we understand Liara ("a lesser mind.")  Unless there's evidence of other non-lesser minds (Alenko?)  So it's either two scenarios, one of non-lesser mind to touch the becon, and one who's The Chosen for their experience and military record, or one character who is both: Shepard.  (Again, you can argue some other military fellow aside from Shepard, like Anderson.)

In ME2, Cerberus just rebuilds Shepard for r1, r2, and r3 for reasons.  So that they can A(rebuilt)->B(n)->C(Suicide Mission.)  Where n = non-integral passive protagonist stuff.  Shepard's a remote control car called main plot device.

Within the scope of ME2, both the character and the role, since the character and role of Shepard is unjustified, and have no plot relevance.  That does not mean that we don't need a leader to fight the Collectors: it does mean there are other ways to do so (which would be plot integral, which means changing the plot.  This is everything from re-writing the story, to simply making Shepard an active protagonist.)

I understand how his character is replaceable. But I refer back to my definition of role "the function which the character serves in the plot". Shepard's role is the leader who fights the Collectors. That is not why Shepard must be the one to fill that role. You yourself admit that a leader to fight the collectors is necessary. Without one the plot structure changes. So is the Shepard role  replaceable?

If you're referring to a role of protagnoist, then obviously not.  Not to say one can't tell the story with many main characters, or characters that all serve the same role (i.e. FF6, Unlimited Saga, War and Peace, etc.), but that's well beyond the narrative style of ME2.  The role of passive protagonist can change, which would involve changing the plot/characterization, or in ME2, actually having characterization of the protagonist.  Equally, the characters, if properly woven into the narrative (like explaining why a recruitment exists), can take the place or need for an active protagonist, and Joker or Miranda or whomever could just be given orders from TIM to pick people up.  It's a weak form of storytelling, but so long as the audience knows why they're going to point B (e.g. recruitment), and the results of that (and only that) cause point C...Z, it'll work.

This is all possible in ME2 because of the static connection between everyone and everything that happens, the flat and static passive protagonist character, and the nonsensical flow of the plot.

Modifié par smudboy, 16 avril 2010 - 02:39 .

[GodWood]

lastpawn wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Jack could kick Shepard's arse.

Although I do know people like to believe that their Shepard is simply stronger than everyone else in the galaxy, its silly really.

Given everything in the game, it's silly not to. ME is unabashedly wish-fulfillment, and your Shepard is supposed to be the greatest in the galaxy. You might be looking for a differently story, but that's the way it is in ME.

No, Shepard is not the best in the galaxy.
However if you want to roleplay/pretend that your Shepard is the biggest most awesomasauce, badarse in galaxy feel free to.
I however think its childish and poor story telling to have a Shepard like that, I prefer to have a more real hero with strengths, weaknesses and flaws.

[Il Divo]

smudboy wrote...

Up to those two points, there's no argument why Shepard is integral.

The psych profile of the Shepard we choose, and the plot (Alliance selecting The Chosen) that leads up to the Beacon/Spectre induction, is integral for those scenes to progress to the next.  It's like building a car to get to point B (Spectre Induction -- the rising action.)  The weak argument for who can survive being TouchedByVorlons could be included with being The Chosen, if we understand Liara ("a lesser mind.")  Unless there's evidence of other non-lesser minds (Alenko?)  So it's either two scenarios, one of non-lesser mind to touch the becon, and one who's The Chosen for their experience and military record, or one character who is both: Shepard.  (Again, you can argue some other military fellow aside from Shepard, like Anderson.)

In ME2, Cerberus just rebuilds Shepard for r1, r2, and r3 for reasons.  So that they can A(rebuilt)->B(n)->C(Suicide Mission.)  Where n = non-integral passive protagonist stuff.  Shepard's a remote control car called main plot device.

But this part of our argument is not about ME2. Whether Shepard is integral to one has no inherent relevance to whether he is integral to the other. You made two conclusions. One of which was: Shepard is integral to the plot. This is all I am arguing against here. We have both agreed that the role is integral. Whichever character touches the beacon/becomes  a Spectre must pursue Saren. This is not in dispute.

I turn your attention again to the bolded point. It illustrates that 'someone' has to be chosen as a Spectre candidate. For Shepard as a character to be 'integral' to the plot, it must be shown that if he did not exist the plot could not continue at all, aside from issues of player choice (Choosing to kill the Rachni for example).

If you're referring to a role of protagnoist, then obviously not.  Not to say one can't tell the story with many main characters, or characters that all serve the same role (i.e. FF6, Unlimited Saga, War and Peace, etc.), but that's well beyond the narrative style of ME2.  The role of passive protagonist can change, which would involve changing the plot/characterization, or in ME2, actually having characterization of the protagonist.  Equally, the characters, if properly woven into the narrative (like explaining why a recruitment exists), can take the place or need for an active protagonist, and Joker or Miranda or whomever could just be given orders from TIM to pick people up.  It's a weak form of storytelling, but so long as the audience knows why they're going to point B (e.g. recruitment), and that why progresses the plot, it'll work.

This is all possible in ME2 because of the static connection between everyone and everything that happens, the flat and static passive protagonist character, and the nonsensical flow of the plot.

But arguing that a character or plot is passive, flat, or static has no relevance to your original claim which is that Shepard is completely replaceable in Mass Effect 2. Here you seem to be arguing that it needs to be changed. That is different from saying his role is replaceable in the confines of the Mass Effect 2 plot. It isn't because a leader to fight the Collectors is integral. But I'm not here arguing whether you liked Mass Effect 2's plot-line. The original question put forth was: "So what exactly is special about Commander Shepard?" Your answer indicated that you were responding under the confines of Mass Effect 2's plot, not some alternate superior plot you would have wanted. Otherwise I could argue that Shepard's role is replaceable in Mass Effect 1 because I can imagine a more logical plot-line.

Let me lay out my points simply:

1. Shepard as a character is replaceable in both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2. His qualifications make him distinguished but not unique. There is nothing Shepard does in either game which another similarly qualified character could not do in the same situations.

2. The Shepard role is irreplaceable in both games. By role, I mean the character's function in the plot. By irreplaceable, I mean if the character is removed from the plot-line, then the story changes in a definitive way. If there is no one to investigate Saren, the plot changes. If there is no one to lead a fight against the Collectors, it still changes.

So now unless you are using a radically different definition of the term replaceable, do you retract your initial statements that Shepard is integral to Mass Effect 1 but replaceable in Mass Effect 2?

Modifié par Il Divo, 16 avril 2010 - 03:03 .

[nubbers666]

how many pepole can take down a entire space station, go through a relay witch no 1 has ever gone through and lived and even return unharmed i mean come on if thats not something i dont know what is



you can build a army with the money spent on bring him or her back but in the end you can also build a army just by bringing him/her back just about any 1 will follow shepard even on a sucide mission

[lastpawn]

GodWood wrote...

lastpawn wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Jack could kick Shepard's arse.

Although I do know people like to believe that their Shepard is simply stronger than everyone else in the galaxy, its silly really.

Given everything in the game, it's silly not to. ME is unabashedly wish-fulfillment, and your Shepard is supposed to be the greatest in the galaxy. You might be looking for a differently story, but that's the way it is in ME.

No, Shepard is not the best in the galaxy.
However if you want to roleplay/pretend that your Shepard is the biggest most awesomasauce, badarse in galaxy feel free to.
I however think its childish and poor story telling to have a Shepard like that, I prefer to have a more real hero with strengths, weaknesses and flaws.

As I stated in my post, I get that this is your preference. But ME universe isn't created like that. ME is wish-fulfillment, and you're Shepard.

Shepard is blatantly positioned as the biggest badass in the game. Let's look at your example of Jack being able to beat Shepard. While I'm sure that this is entirely objective and has nothing to do with your interest in Jack, let me provide a different angle - bear with me.

Jack is positioned to be one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy, somewhere there along with asari matriarchs. Right? Well...
1. Shepard has killed an asari matriarch.
2. Samara is also one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy. She was unable to kill a Spectre. Shepard is positioned as the best Spectre in the galaxy.

Whether you like it or not, the game is certainly not shy about painting Shepard as the top dog.

[GodWood]

lastpawn wrote...

GodWood wrote...

lastpawn wrote...

GodWood wrote...
Jack could kick Shepard's arse.

Although I do know people like to believe that their Shepard is simply stronger than everyone else in the galaxy, its silly really.

Given everything in the game, it's silly not to. ME is unabashedly wish-fulfillment, and your Shepard is supposed to be the greatest in the galaxy. You might be looking for a differently story, but that's the way it is in ME.

No, Shepard is not the best in the galaxy.
However if you want to roleplay/pretend that your Shepard is the biggest most awesomasauce, badarse in galaxy feel free to.
I however think its childish and poor story telling to have a Shepard like that, I prefer to have a more real hero with strengths, weaknesses and flaws.

As I stated in my post, I get that this is your preference. But ME universe isn't created like that. ME is wish-fulfillment, and you're Shepard.

Shepard is blatantly positioned as the biggest badass in the game. Let's look at your example of Jack being able to beat Shepard. While I'm sure that this is entirely objective and has nothing to do with your interest in Jack, let me provide a different angle - bear with me.

Jack is positioned to be one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy, somewhere there along with asari matriarchs. Right? Well...
1. Shepard has killed an asari matriarch.
2. Samara is also one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy. She was unable to kill a Spectre. Shepard is positioned as the best Spectre in the galaxy.

Whether you like it or not, the game is certainly not shy about painting Shepard as the top dog.

I still disagree, Benezia was never mentioned to be "the toughest Matriarch in the galaxy", she was just an asari matriarch.
Just because an asari's a matriarch that doesn't mean they're immediately powerful it just means they are in their last stage of their life. (surely you don't think that bartender is one of the most powerful beings in the galaxy?)

And its never really said Samara's one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy, shes simply a powerful biotic, and the reason why she couldn't kill said spectre was because he used the enviroment to his advantage and put innoccents in danger and hence Samara had to give up on him and protect the inoccents.
Thus that doesn't mean Samara was weaker than Nihlus, it just means he was resourceful and lucky.

And finally you made the assumption that Shepard's the best spectre in the galaxy, no where throughout the whole game is that said, sure he took down the council's favourite  but that doesn't elevate him to "the best in the galaxy", we haven't even got the chance to see any other spectres.

Finally you're forgetting the most important thing, Mass Effect's a Role-Playing game, you can role-play that you're Shepard's an unbeatable cartoon super hero, I can role-play my Shepard's an ex-suicidal, depressed, ruthless, sociopath.
Thats the beauty of it being an RPG.

[Tokion]

I think we can't judge Shepard's combat prowess via gameplay. And we have nearly zero non-gameplay footage of Shepard's fighting capability other than him shooting/intimidating with his little pistol. Also I think some parts of the game really don't do him justice(his default 'body model' has tiny arms, and being 'bullied' by his crew etc.)

But here are some facts on his abilities:
- Shepard is a biotic, even if you are playing a non biotic class. This is evident when I talked to Kaiden in ME1 when I was playing as a soldier. He said that he spikes higher than most L3 'except Shepard'. Then it is safe to assume he is equipped with the L5() implants in ME2.
- He has cybernetic skins and metal skele. Which makes him wolverine if you add medi-gel healing on his combat hardsuit.
- Have access to superior equipment - prototype guns, implants etc.
- N7 Special Forces(Proves he was one of the best in the human military)
- Ability to inspire others with charisma. And if this is not enough, he also have unlimited credits to 'pay' for people to follow him.

I don't think he is the 'most' powerful warrior in the galaxy. But Shepard can handle himself, even if you compare him to his peers. If anyone tries to take Shepard down, I bet he will give them one hell of a fight.

Modifié par Tokion, 16 avril 2010 - 04:46 .

[Tokion]

GodWood wrote...
I still disagree, Benezia was never mentioned to be "the toughest Matriarch in the galaxy", she was just an asari matriarch.
Just because an asari's a matriarch that doesn't mean they're immediately powerful it just means they are in their last stage of their life. (surely you don't think that bartender is one of the most powerful beings in the galaxy?)

It was mentioned in ME1 by the asari councilor that she was one of the most powerful biotic 'even among asari'.

[8erserker]

So, officially I left the thread at page 2 because someone gave me a good suggestion at looking at Shep's character (wonder if I should mention that in the first post....).  But I like the ongoing discussion and knowing that I'm not the only one who has this opinion!

But I just popped by to say I agree with Il Divo about Shep being replaceable, but not his/her role. Also, I'm with GodWood about the Samara vs. Nihlus thing. Just to use another fictional fight (because I can't think of a historical one off the top of my head right now), people have generally accepted that Obi-Wan bested Anakin because of his discipline and experience. Yet, Obi-Wan got thrashed by Count Dooku, whom Anakin killed. So just because Shepard killed Saren, who killed Nihlus, who bested Samara, doesn't mean Shepard's more powerful (for lack of a better phrase) than Samara.

And lastpawn, about Thane... to be more accurate, the Mass Effect Wiki states that he is "rumored to be the most skilled" assassin. Just to clear things up. Good point, though. What does his dossier say in-game?

katie916 wrote...

how many pepole can take down a entire space station, go through a relay witch no 1 has ever gone through and lived and even return unharmed i mean come on if thats not something i dont know what is

Well, Jack does if she survives in your game (she did in mine). Unless she dies. But then, Shepard can die too. Does that mean Joker's the mightiest of them all?

Modifié par Jorran Khaar, 16 avril 2010 - 04:07 .

[smudboy]

Il Divo wrote...
But this part of our argument is not about ME2. Whether Shepard is integral to one has no inherent relevance to whether he is integral to the other. You made two conclusions. One of which was: Shepard is integral to the plot. This is all I am arguing against here. We have both agreed that the role is integral. Whichever character touches the beacon/becomes  a Spectre must pursue Saren. This is not in dispute.

I turn your attention again to the bolded point. It illustrates that 'someone' has to be chosen as a Spectre candidate. For Shepard as a character to be 'integral' to the plot, it must be shown that if he did not exist the plot could not continue at all, aside from issues of player choice (Choosing to kill the Rachni for example).

1) The Chosen->Spectre, 2) TouchedByVorlon, 3) Liara-meld is essential to the plot.  1) is loosely connected to 2) due to Liara's "a lesser mind." comment.  Do we know of a non-lesser mind?  If we do, then 2) could be replaced.  It so happens that the psych profile implies a non-lesser mind, so 2).

But arguing that a character or plot is passive, flat, or static has no relevance to your original claim which is that Shepard is completely replaceable in Mass Effect 2. Here you seem to be arguing that it needs to be changed. That is different from saying his role is replaceable in the confines of the Mass Effect 2 plot. It isn't because a leader to fight the Collectors is integral. But I'm not here arguing whether you liked Mass Effect 2's plot-line. The original question put forth was: "So what exactly is special about Commander Shepard?" Your answer indicated that you were responding under the confines of Mass Effect 2's plot, not some alternate superior plot you would have wanted. Otherwise I could argue that Shepard's role is replaceable in Mass Effect 1 because I can imagine a more logical plot-line.

I was referring to the question you were asking, and giving an answer as how to make that character and role irreplaceable.

Let me lay out my points simply:

1. Shepard as a character is replaceable in both Mass Effect 1 and Mass Effect 2. His qualifications make him distinguished but not unique. There is nothing Shepard does in either game which another similarly qualified character could not do in the same situations.

The question becomes: which character is 1) qualified to be The Chosen?, 2) qualified to have a non-lesser mind?

The Chosen.  Reason R(1...n).  Same argument with ME2.  For existence.

With ME2, we can easily take Jacob, or Miranda to replace Shepard, because his Chosen status is not plot integral.

ME1 The Chosen
r1. Notoriety == Spectre status == Normandy
r2. Psych profile == non-lesser mind = TouchedByVorlon.
ME2 The Chosen
r1. Beat a Reaper = nothing.
r2. Attention of Reapers = nothing.
r3. A bloody icon = nothing (save store discounts.)

2. The Shepard role is irreplaceable in both games. By role, I mean the character's function in the plot. By irreplaceable, I mean if the character is removed from the plot-line, then the story changes in a definitive way. If there is no one to investigate Saren, the plot changes. If there is no one to lead a fight against the Collectors, it still changes.

ME1. Requires
1. A human Spectre/Normandy (could be anyone the Alliance deems The Chosen.  Know any other N7s?  Yes?)
2. A non-lesser mind (2 visions + Cipher, could only be Shepard)
3. Liara meld (could only be Liara -- sure, there could be another prothean asari researcher...)
ME2. Requires
1. Someone to tell TIM/Miranda to stop wasting money and time.
2. Anyone (Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, etc.)

[Sharn01]

While I am not here to fully support GodWood, he is correct that Samara is never stated to be one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy, just a very powerful one.  Jack was also never stated to be one of the most powerful biotics in the galaxy, it was stated that she was one of the most powerful human biotics, which is a huge difference.

I do not feel that Shepard is the biggest baddest person in the galaxy, but s/he is certainly able to hold his/her own against the crew in ME2.  I listed some of the many reasons in my previous post, there is no point in going over everything, its all in the game material, some obvious and some not so obvious for anyone who cares to look.

[Space Shot]

Commander Shepard is secretly a member of the Second Foundation. That's why everyone agrees with whatever he says regardless of their own previous standpoints so long as sufficient power is applied through red/blue options.  He has mentalic abilities!

Modifié par Space Shot, 16 avril 2010 - 04:20 .

[Il Divo]

Apologies for the delay. I had some business which I was attending to.

smudboy wrote...

1) The Chosen->Spectre, 2) TouchedByVorlon, 3) Liara-meld is essential to the plot.  1) is loosely connected to 2) due to Liara's "a lesser mind." comment.  Do we know of a non-lesser mind?  If we do, then 2) could be replaced.  It so happens that the psych profile implies a non-lesser mind, so 2).

It depends now on what we qualify for non-lesser mind. I could advocate Jacob. He does exist as of Mass Effect 1 and fought on Eden Prime. Would you say he has a non-lesser mind?

Note: For purposes of discussion, I from now on will be using the term 'strong mind' in place of 'non-lesser mind' which I find awkward.

I was referring to the question you were asking, and giving an answer as how to make that character and role irreplaceable.

No, you are misunderstanding me again. The role is already irreplaceable. The role is 'leader to fight the Collectors'. Or more generally 'protagonist' as you said which you agreed cannot be removed without changing the frame-work of the story. By saying the role is replaceable, you are saying we could take out 'leader to fight the Collectors' and still have the same plot.

So what would be the alternative I ask you? Would Illusive man recruit these squad members himself? Will they even get  along? Are they to decide on how to run missions democratically perhaps? Shall it be 'one party member, one vote'? Or will the sum weight of each vote be proportional based on their total experience?  Cerberus runs its operations in a military style. I know of few military/special forces operations in which everyone has equal say. Now you can argue that we need to make Shepard's character irreplaceable as you pointed out. But 'leader to fight the Collectors'  already is necessary I'm afraid.

The question becomes: which character is 1) qualified to be The Chosen?, 2) qualified to have a non-lesser mind?

The Chosen.  Reason R(1...n).  Same argument with ME2.  For existence.

With ME2, we can easily take Jacob, or Miranda to replace Shepard, because his Chosen status is not plot integral.

ME1 The Chosen
r1. Notoriety == Spectre status == Normandy
r2. Psych profile == non-lesser mind = TouchedByVorlon.
ME2 The Chosen
r1. Beat a Reaper = nothing.
r2. Attention of Reapers = nothing.
r3. A bloody icon = nothing (save store discounts.)

Why are you assuming that the term qualified is some sort of exclusive feature of Mass Effect 1? It is no different from Mass Effect 2 when compared directly. Whoever fights the Collectors must be qualified to be the 'chosen'. In both games they must also be human.
 
Previously you argued that Kaidan is not qualified to handle becoming a Spectre even though physically he is capable of all the same feats which we see Shepard perform. How is Jacob any different? Physically he may be able to accomplish the task with ease. But how does this qualify him for the role to lead a squad against the Collectors?

ME1. Requires
1. A human Spectre/Normandy (could be anyone the Alliance deems The Chosen.  Know any other N7s?  Yes?)
2. A non-lesser mind (2 visions + Cipher, could only be Shepard)
3. Liara meld (could only be Liara -- sure, there could be another prothean asari researcher...)

1. I'd like to clear up a misconception you seem to be having. First N7 is not exclusive to Shepard and Anderson. It is not a title. It is a code designating Special Forces and highest level of proficiency. I'd also like to point out that the Alliance is going to choose a candidate regardless of the circumstances. If Shepard did not exist, they would not sit in a corner and cry. They would instead choose the next most qualified candidate whoever it may be. The role is integral. The character is not.

2. No again there is an error here. This is why the Touchedbyvorlorns character is integral. You are still pointing out a character's function to say 'the character is integral'. Shepard is not integral. Is he the only 'strong mind' in the universe? He clearly is not  as Saren demonstrates for example.

3. Yes, this shows that Liara's role is integral. I do not dispute that.

ME2. Requires
1. Someone to tell TIM/Miranda to stop wasting money and time.
2. Anyone (Miranda, Jacob, Garrus, etc.)

1. If that is how you truly feel. I cannot argue your feelings.  

2. No, this is wrong. Not 'anyone'. Illusive Man is running this operation Cerberus-style. They are a pro-human organization. They are not going to allow anyone but a human to lead this operation. Miranda and Jacob taking the role we can consider. Garrus or any other alien squad member in Mass Effect 2 is not feasible any more than the Alliance choosing Garrus as their candidate for the first human Spectre. Both games require that the protagonist is human and capable. So not 'anyone'. The Spectre/Squad Leader of both games must be someone who is capable.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 avril 2010 - 02:26 .