AnimaTempli101 wrote...
@Obsy
What would you consider 'done right', out of curiosity?
Obviously this wasn't directed at me, but since I know Obsydian likes this story as well, I'd say it was done right in
Supernova. There, Shepard's first name is Rose; it's introduced late in the story, but it never "takes over" - the writer doesn't start saying "Rose did this or that" but stays with "Shepard did this or that". Also, the name is very closely related to a subplot of the story, and the color red is used all over as an important symbol with a specific meaning. So in this case, it doesn't bother me.
I understand that the writers want to make their Shepard a unique individual. The given name, hair and eye color, complexion and whether she's biotic or not - these are all the standard devices to make that happen. Describing those also mimics the process of character generation in the games.
But therein lies the problem: if she's your Shep, she can't be my Shep, and if I can't identify with the lead character, I can't enjoy the story. There are very few situations where mentioning such identifying traits does anything for the reader - in fact, the one I linked up there is the only one I know of where it actually works. If it ties into the story, it's ok. If not, it's just a waste of words, and you'll do your readers a favor if you simply leave it out. Kill your babies and all that jazz.

leonia42 wrote...
It doesn't feel right for Garrus to ever address Shepard as anything but "Shepard" or "Commander" on occasion (though darn it, I wish he'd stop referring to her by rank already).
So true. I can't for the life of me imagine Garrus saying "Mildred" or whatever.
Modifié par Lady Olivia, 29 mai 2011 - 04:09 .