I did run into a pacing prolblem with Tali in ME1. I went and talked to everyone, and Tali said something about things getting close to the end, when we hadn't even gone to Virmire yet. It struck me as unnatural. Garrus, Ash, and Kaidan all had new things to say to me at that point, though. It seems to me Tali talked a bit extra at the beginning, anyway.
Calibrations: Garrus Love and Turian Discussion
Débuté par
Chimervera
, juin 26 2010 03:45
Retour en haut
#9277
Posté 21 août 2010 - 11:26
Collider
-
- Members
- 17 165 messages
Yea same kglaser except that I ran into that problem with Kaidan too.
#9278
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:12
kglaser
-
- Members
- 7 341 messages
LOL, the Garrus threads are popping up now all over the place...oi. 
#9280
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:16
kglaser
-
- Members
- 7 341 messages
Oh, and about the middle names cia...I'd vote "no".. I have no scientific reason or anything, I just wouldn't think turians have them.
#9281
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:18
Hazzel42
-
- Members
- 676 messages
Hmm if Garrus did have a middle name would it be embarrassing or would it be a cool one? Be funny if it was something he didn't want to talk about because it was silly.
#9282
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:18
Eradyn
-
- Members
- 2 636 messages
Woot! Discussion! :3
I know one of the devs actually came out on twitter and said ME1 decisions would have significant consequences in ME3...perhaps they meant we'd get video voice mail messages? I kid (partially), and they probably meant more like "saving the Rachni or not" than "encourage Garrus to kill/save Saleon."
My personal guess is that we'll see different "versions" of Garrus in ME3 depending on our influences on him. Perhaps in ME3, if you paragon'd him enough, he'll be that "renegade with a heart of gold." Maybe if you renegade him enough, he'll be more ruthless in his tactics.
I DON'T think it's a matter of a student/teacher situation. Granted, others viewed their relationship in such a light, although my perspective is, and was, different. For me, it was more like: (ME1) Okay, here's a guy who's just joined up on my team. He sees me saving the galaxy and in a job he probably would like to have one day. He respects my word and authority for those reasons, but is not a child looking for an adult's guidance. He will, since he respects me, consider my words but ultimately be his own person.
And he was. His acknowledgements of Shepard's positions in ME1 were conveyed in a way that seemed, to me, to be of grudging acquiescence, and not unbridled and blind agreement. He "sees your point," or "you're *probably* right." To me, this is an important distinction.
Then the events between the end of ME1 and the beginning of ME2 happen. Garrus makes his OWN decisions and chooses HIS OWN path. Yes, the player may help influence his decisions and choices and perceptions, but HE drives them. He's his own person. And there is one scenario where this is reflected to the player in passing: if you encouraged Garrus' renegade tendencies, and then try to paragon him on his ME2 loyalty mission, he will note that he's surprised at your stance. BUT he's still his own person, as he's always been if one looked for it in ME1.
I actually think he WAS making a significant difference on Omega. He was stopping illegal shipments, disrupting merc gangs in a major way, causing them to lose business and customers. He was dismantling their leadership. He was giving people around there some small measure of hope. It was significant enough to drive three of the largest merc gangs to work together to bring him down. The significance of that shouldn't be understated.
Of course, it all goes to hell after Sidonis' betrayal, but he WAS accomplishing quite a bit. Still, I do think it might be somewhat unfair to say he couldn't accomplish much of anything without Shepard, because he did.
That said, there's no denying that the player's involvement plays a major part at the end of it all...and really, that's just a game design to make the player feel important and special and, well, the hero of the story. I think MOST of the characters kind of "suffer" that with Shepard, though, where they require the player's aid to succeed or become more than they were before.
Heheh, I don't think many people would argue with you there. I think most people want more interaction and dialogue and better pacing for their beloved character(s). I really wish they'd done more with the dialogue, for both romance paths and friendship paths. There's so much more I want to know, not just about turians in general but about Garrus. I fear BW really dropped the ball on character development. Yes, he did develop...but there could have been so much more than the brief conversations we were given.
What we did get, however, I enjoyed. I liked his dialogue, certainly since none of it was really wasted and it DID make me laugh...or at least smile. I just wish, as you mentioned, they'd gone further with it.
Once again, I agree with you here. ^^ And yeah, the romance could be REALLY awkward in places...but the sweetness of it more than made up for it, at least for me.
Anyway, hope you don't mind that I went into depth here. I think you brought up some really good points and I love discussions like these...especially since it allows everyone to share their own interpretations.
jtav wrote...
Collider has promised that I won't be eaten, so these are some brief thoughts on Garrus.
-- Nothing that happened in ME mattered. I normally play Paragon and do my best to show him that policies and procedures matter. I tell him to arrest Saleon. So finding out that he's still indulging his vigilante streak feels like a slap in the face. He's still prone to being consumed by feelings of vengeance. While it's perhaps realistic that he would backslide, it leaves me feeling like I shouldn't have bothered.
I know one of the devs actually came out on twitter and said ME1 decisions would have significant consequences in ME3...perhaps they meant we'd get video voice mail messages?
I kid (partially), and they probably meant more like "saving the Rachni or not" than "encourage Garrus to kill/save Saleon." My personal guess is that we'll see different "versions" of Garrus in ME3 depending on our influences on him. Perhaps in ME3, if you paragon'd him enough, he'll be that "renegade with a heart of gold." Maybe if you renegade him enough, he'll be more ruthless in his tactics.
I DON'T think it's a matter of a student/teacher situation. Granted, others viewed their relationship in such a light, although my perspective is, and was, different. For me, it was more like: (ME1) Okay, here's a guy who's just joined up on my team. He sees me saving the galaxy and in a job he probably would like to have one day. He respects my word and authority for those reasons, but is not a child looking for an adult's guidance. He will, since he respects me, consider my words but ultimately be his own person.
And he was. His acknowledgements of Shepard's positions in ME1 were conveyed in a way that seemed, to me, to be of grudging acquiescence, and not unbridled and blind agreement. He "sees your point," or "you're *probably* right." To me, this is an important distinction.
Then the events between the end of ME1 and the beginning of ME2 happen. Garrus makes his OWN decisions and chooses HIS OWN path. Yes, the player may help influence his decisions and choices and perceptions, but HE drives them. He's his own person. And there is one scenario where this is reflected to the player in passing: if you encouraged Garrus' renegade tendencies, and then try to paragon him on his ME2 loyalty mission, he will note that he's surprised at your stance. BUT he's still his own person, as he's always been if one looked for it in ME1.
--He's presented as the eternal sidekick. He'll always do better with Shepard than on his own. His crusade as Archangel, while admirable, seems to have accomplished very little until Shepard showed up. If he had been shown making more of a difference on Omega before I showed up, I think I would've liked it much more.
I actually think he WAS making a significant difference on Omega. He was stopping illegal shipments, disrupting merc gangs in a major way, causing them to lose business and customers. He was dismantling their leadership. He was giving people around there some small measure of hope. It was significant enough to drive three of the largest merc gangs to work together to bring him down. The significance of that shouldn't be understated.
Of course, it all goes to hell after Sidonis' betrayal, but he WAS accomplishing quite a bit. Still, I do think it might be somewhat unfair to say he couldn't accomplish much of anything without Shepard, because he did.
That said, there's no denying that the player's involvement plays a major part at the end of it all...and really, that's just a game design to make the player feel important and special and, well, the hero of the story. I think MOST of the characters kind of "suffer" that with Shepard, though, where they require the player's aid to succeed or become more than they were before.--He has very little dialogue in the second game and I don't feel like he got nearly enough character development. Off the top of my head, they could have expanded on his feelings that he's not a very good turian. As it stands, it feels like the developers feel like some very funny lines and the fact that he was in the first game should be enough. It's not for me.
Heheh, I don't think many people would argue with you there. I think most people want more interaction and dialogue and better pacing for their beloved character(s). I really wish they'd done more with the dialogue, for both romance paths and friendship paths. There's so much more I want to know, not just about turians in general but about Garrus. I fear BW really dropped the ball on character development. Yes, he did develop...but there could have been so much more than the brief conversations we were given.
What we did get, however, I enjoyed. I liked his dialogue, certainly since none of it was really wasted and it DID make me laugh...or at least smile. I just wish, as you mentioned, they'd gone further with it.
-- I have no real issue with his romance. It's not really my thing because they feel so awkward in places but the romance scene is very good. I like that he's willing to try to work so hard at making this work.
I do think he has some very good lines in the sequel. I do love deadpan snarker characters.
Once again, I agree with you here. ^^ And yeah, the romance could be REALLY awkward in places...but the sweetness of it more than made up for it, at least for me.
Anyway, hope you don't mind that I went into depth here. I think you brought up some really good points and I love discussions like these...especially since it allows everyone to share their own interpretations.
#9283
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:35
Lovestories
-
- Members
- 345 messages
I have a question for this thread, so what is the general idea here on the Garrus romance? Do most of you think it was perfect/went well, too short, just a one night stand?
Hm I know there are good arguments as to why the Garrus romance was just a one night stand or why it wasnt. I just feel like the Garrus romance could have been really beautiful, I feel they didnt try hard enough with this one. Just looking at them (shep and Gar) they appear so mismatched a turian and a human, but their relationship goes so deep, two bestfriends who've been through hell and back and have faced rough lives which have greatly effected them. Garrus feels like he only has you, and you can trust him the most out of the femshep romance (if you go on duration of friendship). urgh I'm rambling, I just feel like they (the writers) could have explored what could have been the most deep and beautiful relationship on the ship. For me theres a bit missing, I feel they've made us rely too heavily on our own between the lines interpretation...(sigh) I dunno.
Hm I know there are good arguments as to why the Garrus romance was just a one night stand or why it wasnt. I just feel like the Garrus romance could have been really beautiful, I feel they didnt try hard enough with this one. Just looking at them (shep and Gar) they appear so mismatched a turian and a human, but their relationship goes so deep, two bestfriends who've been through hell and back and have faced rough lives which have greatly effected them. Garrus feels like he only has you, and you can trust him the most out of the femshep romance (if you go on duration of friendship). urgh I'm rambling, I just feel like they (the writers) could have explored what could have been the most deep and beautiful relationship on the ship. For me theres a bit missing, I feel they've made us rely too heavily on our own between the lines interpretation...(sigh) I dunno.
#9284
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:39
Collider
-
- Members
- 17 165 messages
I've done all of the romances Mass Effect has to offer. There are flaws in all of them - 100% perfection just isn't there. It may be as simple as not having enough dialog, or not having good dialog, or anything else and in-between.
I like the theme of trust in Garrus' romance.
I like the theme of trust in Garrus' romance.
Modifié par Collider, 22 août 2010 - 12:47 .
#9285
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:40
ciaweth
-
- Members
- 1 121 messages
I think that's something we might get to figure out in ME3. We each have our personal interpretations, of course.
#9286
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:46
Eradyn
-
- Members
- 2 636 messages
Lovestories wrote...
I have a question for this thread, so what is the general idea here on the Garrus romance? Do most of you think it was perfect/went well, too short, just a one night stand?
Hm I know there are good arguments as to why the Garrus romance was just a one night stand or why it wasnt. I just feel like the Garrus romance could have been really beautiful, I feel they didnt try hard enough with this one. Just looking at them (shep and Gar) they appear so mismatched a turian and a human, but their relationship goes so deep, two bestfriends who've been through hell and back and have faced rough lives which have greatly effected them. Garrus feels like he only has you, and you can trust him the most out of the femshep romance (if you go on duration of friendship). urgh I'm rambling, I just feel like they (the writers) could have explored what could have been the most deep and beautiful relationship on the ship. For me theres a bit missing, I feel they've made us rely too heavily on our own between the lines interpretation...(sigh) I dunno.
I agree with you. For me...could there have been improvements? Hell yeah. Don't get me wrong...I'm REALLY glad he was an option. But...when I first got through the romance, my reaction was: Wait. A headbump? ALL THAT BEGGING AND PLEADING AFTER ME1 AND THEN THE CALLIBRATIONS AND IT'S A HEADBUMP? D8
Again, there are a lot of things I appreciated.
A LOT of this particular romance, however, is driven by body-language and you really do need to be looking for that. There was a lot of subtle emotion and implied meanings in what they said and didn't say. Their pauses, their facial expressions, the way Shepard ran her hand across Garrus' scars. The implications that you, Lovestories, expanded upon. This romance was definitely NOT an "in your face and hold your hand" kind of romance like the others. And because of that, people really do need to "read between the lines" to get it.
Part of me likes that...but a part of me also wishes there was a little more clarification.
Personally, be it wishful thinking or otherwise, I don't think it was a "friends with benefits" situation at all. Too much emotion, too much history together, too much sadness and wanting and hoping, for it to just be a one-night-stand. If it were that, it would only have been from the perspective of "this will probably be our last night alive, together...and I want it to be spent with you."
Just my own opinion.
#9287
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:50
Collider
-
- Members
- 17 165 messages
Realistically speaking, it's not going to play out like a one night stand or friends with benefits scenario. The romance is going to carry through and develop into ME3.
#9288
Posté 22 août 2010 - 12:52
Eradyn
-
- Members
- 2 636 messages
Collider wrote...
Realistically speaking, it's not going to play out like a one night stand or friends with benefits scenario. The romance is going to carry through and develop into ME3.
I think most of us know that.
I think BW knows that too and wouldn't want to risk the angry mob. XDI also think we still have that stocked armory from the old BW boards. The one with the rachni army and pitchforks.
#9289
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:00
Bugsie
-
- Members
- 3 609 messages
I don't necessarily blame Bioware for the flaws, I think they did a good job in trying to cater to a lot of what they thought might be popular amongst the players (Jacobs romance for example) and I don't think I would necessarily want gameplay sacrificed for the sake of setting up home with your LI. We went from having 3 love interests to 6 across the board, this must have entailed a great deal of effort on Biowares part. But now the game has been out for quite a while, the devotees of the game (such as ourselves) can really nitpick aspects that will hopefully help Bioware improve ME3.
As for more Garrus, as a romance and a bromance (actually just squad banter in general) I'd definitely like more, but I don't mind that they made us rely on our own 'between the lines interpretation' for the character interactions. I like that I got to use my imagination as to the romance aspects, and I have certainly enjoyed others takes on it too.
As for more Garrus, as a romance and a bromance (actually just squad banter in general) I'd definitely like more, but I don't mind that they made us rely on our own 'between the lines interpretation' for the character interactions. I like that I got to use my imagination as to the romance aspects, and I have certainly enjoyed others takes on it too.
Modifié par Buggirl70, 22 août 2010 - 01:01 .
#9290
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:08
Lovestories
-
- Members
- 345 messages
Eradyn wrote...
I agree with you. For me...could there have been improvements? Hell yeah. Don't get me wrong...I'm REALLY glad he was an option. But...when I first got through the romance, my reaction was: Wait. A headbump? ALL THAT BEGGING AND PLEADING AFTER ME1 AND THEN THE CALLIBRATIONS AND IT'S A HEADBUMP? D8
Again, there are a lot of things I appreciated.
A LOT of this particular romance, however, is driven by body-language and you really do need to be looking for that. There was a lot of subtle emotion and implied meanings in what they said and didn't say. Their pauses, their facial expressions, the way Shepard ran her hand across Garrus' scars. The implications that you, Lovestories, expanded upon. This romance was definitely NOT an "in your face and hold your hand" kind of romance like the others. And because of that, people really do need to "read between the lines" to get it.
You know I agree with what you've written aswell, we could easily analyse everything everything and come up with something beautiful and dramatic, Oh blah blah blah, hes hurts, Sheps healing him, physical representation with, blah blah! I just think we shouldnt have to work so hard, it should have been clearer b/c we can all come up with 100s of different analysis.
Again thats exactly how I am about the Garrus romance, I'm in two minds. I guess I definately dont hate it, but I dont love it either like I wanted to. I made another Shepard just to romance him, only to get headbump-fadetoblack.....headbumpblack! are you serious?Part of me likes that...but a part of me also wishes there was a little more clarification.
Yeah I agree with you. For me Garrus has no one who cares (not literally), hes always on duty, hes dependable, hes always there to support others, but again he's alone. Nothing seems to be going his way and he hurting and has no one to support him.He laces everything with humor but Garrus really feels a bit tragic. Hes a good guy with bad things happening to him. When he has his moment with Shepard its like finally, someones there for him emotionally, its not a requirement its not a duty its that human/social need being fulfilled. That was really bought home for me when you see his rejection, and he says "I'll be here when you need me" AS USUAL always there, but no one really there for him imo. But anyway thats part of the reason I do like Garrus's scene.Personally, be it wishful thinking or otherwise, I don't think it was a "friends with benefits" situation at all. Too much emotion, too much history together, too much sadness and wanting and hoping, for it to just be a one-night-stand. If it were that, it would only have been from the perspective of "this will probably be our last night alive, together...and I want it to be spent with you."
I guess I wanted more lines as you said to clarify things.
Modifié par Lovestories, 22 août 2010 - 01:10 .
#9291
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:28
Twilight_Princess
-
- Members
- 3 474 messages
I truly believe that ME3 will have that clarification , then FINALLY people can stop calling it a one night stand 
Like I said before ,the people who accuse it of being just a fling have to explain something, why didn't it look like Jack's renegade scene? Or Jacob's romance scene? If it was just about stress release then ask yourself, did that final scene look like they had a sexathon before the end mission 
? They could have had sex , that's not what I'm saying though. I just have a hard time accepting something that looked so gentle and tame and MEANINGFUL (light headbump anyone?) was just friends bumping uglies for the sake of bumping uglies.
Like I said before ,the people who accuse it of being just a fling have to explain something, why didn't it look like Jack's renegade scene? Or Jacob's romance scene? If it was just about stress release then ask yourself, did that final scene look like they had a sexathon before the end mission ? They could have had sex , that's not what I'm saying though. I just have a hard time accepting something that looked so gentle and tame and MEANINGFUL (light headbump anyone?) was just friends bumping uglies for the sake of bumping uglies.
Modifié par Hyrule_Gal, 22 août 2010 - 01:28 .
#9292
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:33
jtav
-
- Members
- 13 965 messages
I don't think it was a one-night stand. That may have been the original intention, but it seems to have developed into an actual romance by the time of the suicide mission. None of the romances are necessarily a fling, though some can be played that way.
#9293
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:41
Mr.BlazenGlazen
-
- Members
- 4 159 messages
It basically is what the players intend it to be. Most of us here itend to be more then a one-night fling:whistle:jtav wrote...
I don't think it was a one-night stand. That may have been the original intention, but it seems to have developed into an actual romance by the time of the suicide mission. None of the romances are necessarily a fling, though some can be played that way.
#9294
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:43
Lovestories
-
- Members
- 345 messages
Yeah but you could argue thats because they dont really know what they're doing so they couldnt be rough and jump right into it like with Jacob and Jack. Neither of them have done it with the other speciesHyrule_Gal wrote...
I truly believe that ME3 will have that clarification , then FINALLY people can stop calling it a one night stand
I guess thats just my moany problem lol, a few more lines could have clarified that it isnt.
#9295
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:46
Homebound
-
- Members
- 11 891 messages
There should be cutscenes in the Normandy where Garrus is not calibrating something. He could just be leaning against a wall and drinking coffee or something. Anything that prevents him from being indoctrinated by those Thannix Cannons.
Fun Fact: The Normandy-2 and EDI are partially made up from parts from Sovereign's wreckage.
Fun Fact: The Normandy-2 and EDI are partially made up from parts from Sovereign's wreckage.
#9296
Posté 22 août 2010 - 01:56
Eradyn
-
- Members
- 2 636 messages
Just_mike wrote...
There should be cutscenes in the Normandy where Garrus is not calibrating something. He could just be leaning against a wall and drinking coffee or something. Anything that prevents him from being indoctrinated by those Thannix Cannons.
Fun Fact: The Normandy-2 and EDI are partially made up from parts from Sovereign's wreckage.
Y'know...I think it would be beyond awesome to have crew and squad members wandering the Normandy on their own schedules, and be able to interact with them. Garrus is having a cup of coffee? Join him for one and share in a short bit of "banter"/dialogue...even if it's about nothing more than some small insight. And I think this should be done for all of them. ^^
#9297
Posté 22 août 2010 - 02:16
kglaser
-
- Members
- 7 341 messages
Eradyn, I agree with everything in your last 2 posts. 
#9298
Posté 22 août 2010 - 02:21
Homebound
-
- Members
- 11 891 messages
Speaking of the Rachni, I think the Keepers might be Rachni. O_o
What does this have to do with Garrus? Who knows. Maybe Garrus will ride a Keeper via like a Cowboy and ride it into battle against a fleet of Reapers.
What does this have to do with Garrus? Who knows. Maybe Garrus will ride a Keeper via like a Cowboy and ride it into battle against a fleet of Reapers.
#9299
Posté 22 août 2010 - 03:01
Pedpickle
-
- Members
- 47 messages
Eradyn wrote...
Just_mike wrote...
There should be cutscenes in the Normandy where Garrus is not calibrating something. He could just be leaning against a wall and drinking coffee or something. Anything that prevents him from being indoctrinated by those Thannix Cannons.
Fun Fact: The Normandy-2 and EDI are partially made up from parts from Sovereign's wreckage.
Y'know...I think it would be beyond awesome to have crew and squad members wandering the Normandy on their own schedules, and be able to interact with them. Garrus is having a cup of coffee? Join him for one and share in a short bit of "banter"/dialogue...even if it's about nothing more than some small insight. And I think this should be done for all of them. ^^
I can see it now!
"can it wait for a bit? I'm in the middle of my coffee break."
#9300
Guest_Raga_*
Posté 22 août 2010 - 03:35
Guest_Raga_*
Guest_Raga_*
-
- Guests
Ah, man, this could potentially be a monster wall of text so warning in advance.
First of all, I agree with pretty much everything Eradyn said about this. Secondly, I think this was partially also a gamplay mechanic. ME2 had to become somewhat streamlined so Garrus could have a realistic and consistent arc going into ME3. Thirdly, you have to consider that Shepard died and that the Council backslid on the Reaper menace. The person who looked like they had it all together ended up getting spaced and then official channels starting ignoring the threat. That's definitely gonna open some old wounds up for Garrus. In that situation, it does look like a good bit of paragon Shepard's philosophy isn't spot on in accuracy. And last, there is an interesting nuance to ME2 Garrus. He "rounds out." He actually becomes less trigger happy and less okay with collateral damage than he was in ME1. I could flesh that out for you if you like or we could wait for Nilf to get on and do it as she is of the same opinion I think. Anyway, my point is that ME2 Garrus is sorta halfway inbetween renegade Garrus and paragon Garrus from ME1. That makes sense froma gameplay perspective as it streamlines things, it means Garrus is learning on his own, and it also can mean that some of what Shepard taught him in ME1 did stick.
I think this is largely because he is getting compared to Shepard, and Shep is the star of the show. Garrus is never going to do something like blow up Sovereign on his own. Doesn't mean he can't catch some bad guys, inspire some people, and grow on his own, and I think he did all of that.
I think most of us agree with you here. There is a reason this thread is called Calibrations. It's a running joke that the guy never talks to us and is always calibrating. We get sick of it too.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie] What dialog is present is extremely rich in subtext, but you have to pick it apart to get it. I admit that there isn't much that is sitting on the surface of his dialog.
I agree mostly. However, I am actually one of the ones on here who wants more from the romance scene. More than just a headbump. I wouldn't trade the headbump for the world, but I would still like to see what happened after that. About ten more seconds would have been golden. Something like this would be ideal:
@Lovestories
I think one reason we do not get the overtly romantic stuff in his romance in ME2 is because his arc is not complete. We still need material to keep his character viable where it can grow in ME3. Same with the relationship. An "I love you" from a private guy like Garrus would be HUGE. I think it would be premature in ME2. I think that sort of thing would mark the end of the arc, like Jaheira or Viconia in Throne of Bhaal. And it felt all the more potent for how long it took to happen with those two I think.
@Pacifen
I think we have a dim view of the general forums at large. At least, I do. I don't mind disagreeing with people in a civil way, but in my experience some types of threads all too often end in shouting matches. I also think tempers are a little short here today because of a really virulent thread from a few days ago that had some nasty stuff in it. It has made us a little more suspicious than we normally would be of threads about Garrus. What I read in this newer thread (it's been a few hours since I looked at it) was actually quite harmless and I wouldn't call it trolling. I would call a troll someone who attacks you with the intention of making you mad and/or trying to make you look foolish, stupid, or bad for having a certain opinion. The trolling doubles if a troll is specifically trying to get a thread closed because they don't happen to like what the thread is about. I have also found that many new character threads in the open forums often come from new forumites who have not yet learned about the character groups. Maybe they just want to talk about the fact that they like Tali, but don't know about Clan Z. All too often they get swarmed and attacked. In the open forums that can get really nasty and they can drown in the mob. This happened to a few newcomer Talimancers the other day I noticed. It wasn't pretty. The last reason I think we like Garrus discussion to happen in here is that we have analyzed him up, down, and sideways so if an intricate explanation is to be had for a problem, you are more likely to find it here than from some passersby in the general forums. I know character threads can lead to groupthink. I admit that and it can be hard for a newcomer to break in who doesn't like Garrus, but I still think bringing their problems here (provided they do so in a civil manner) is going to result in more constructive debate than doing so out in the main forums. After all, we have to keep things civil in here or we risk getting our own thread closed. Why would we want that? Flame wars and character bashing and all that would not help our cause because we would loose the place where we like to talk.
I told you it might be a monster wall of text.
jtav wrote...
Collider has promised that I won't be eaten, so these are some brief thoughts on Garrus.
-- Nothing that happened in ME mattered. I normally play Paragon and do my best to show him that policies and procedures matter. I tell him to arrest Saleon. So finding out that he's still indulging his vigilante streak feels like a slap in the face. He's still prone to being consumed by feelings of vengeance. While it's perhaps realistic that he would backslide, it leaves me feeling like I shouldn't have bothered.
First of all, I agree with pretty much everything Eradyn said about this. Secondly, I think this was partially also a gamplay mechanic. ME2 had to become somewhat streamlined so Garrus could have a realistic and consistent arc going into ME3. Thirdly, you have to consider that Shepard died and that the Council backslid on the Reaper menace. The person who looked like they had it all together ended up getting spaced and then official channels starting ignoring the threat. That's definitely gonna open some old wounds up for Garrus. In that situation, it does look like a good bit of paragon Shepard's philosophy isn't spot on in accuracy. And last, there is an interesting nuance to ME2 Garrus. He "rounds out." He actually becomes less trigger happy and less okay with collateral damage than he was in ME1. I could flesh that out for you if you like or we could wait for Nilf to get on and do it as she is of the same opinion I think. Anyway, my point is that ME2 Garrus is sorta halfway inbetween renegade Garrus and paragon Garrus from ME1. That makes sense froma gameplay perspective as it streamlines things, it means Garrus is learning on his own, and it also can mean that some of what Shepard taught him in ME1 did stick.
--He's presented as the eternal sidekick. He'll always do better with Shepard than on his own. His crusade as Archangel, while admirable, seems to have accomplished very little until Shepard showed up. If he had been shown making more of a difference on Omega before I showed up, I think I would've liked it much more.
I think this is largely because he is getting compared to Shepard, and Shep is the star of the show. Garrus is never going to do something like blow up Sovereign on his own. Doesn't mean he can't catch some bad guys, inspire some people, and grow on his own, and I think he did all of that.
--He has very little dialogue in the second game and I don't feel like he got nearly enough character development. Off the top of my head, they could have expanded on his feelings that he's not a very good turian. As it stands, it feels like the developers feel like some very funny lines and the fact that he was in the first game should be enough. It's not for me.
I think most of us agree with you here. There is a reason this thread is called Calibrations. It's a running joke that the guy never talks to us and is always calibrating. We get sick of it too.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie] What dialog is present is extremely rich in subtext, but you have to pick it apart to get it. I admit that there isn't much that is sitting on the surface of his dialog.
-- I have no real issue with his romance. It's not really my thing because they feel so awkward in places but the romance scene is very good. I like that he's willing to try to work so hard at making this work.
I do think he has some very good lines in the sequel. I do love deadpan snarker characters.
I agree mostly. However, I am actually one of the ones on here who wants more from the romance scene. More than just a headbump. I wouldn't trade the headbump for the world, but I would still like to see what happened after that. About ten more seconds would have been golden. Something like this would be ideal:
@Lovestories
I think one reason we do not get the overtly romantic stuff in his romance in ME2 is because his arc is not complete. We still need material to keep his character viable where it can grow in ME3. Same with the relationship. An "I love you" from a private guy like Garrus would be HUGE. I think it would be premature in ME2. I think that sort of thing would mark the end of the arc, like Jaheira or Viconia in Throne of Bhaal. And it felt all the more potent for how long it took to happen with those two I think.
@Pacifen
I think we have a dim view of the general forums at large. At least, I do. I don't mind disagreeing with people in a civil way, but in my experience some types of threads all too often end in shouting matches. I also think tempers are a little short here today because of a really virulent thread from a few days ago that had some nasty stuff in it. It has made us a little more suspicious than we normally would be of threads about Garrus. What I read in this newer thread (it's been a few hours since I looked at it) was actually quite harmless and I wouldn't call it trolling. I would call a troll someone who attacks you with the intention of making you mad and/or trying to make you look foolish, stupid, or bad for having a certain opinion. The trolling doubles if a troll is specifically trying to get a thread closed because they don't happen to like what the thread is about. I have also found that many new character threads in the open forums often come from new forumites who have not yet learned about the character groups. Maybe they just want to talk about the fact that they like Tali, but don't know about Clan Z. All too often they get swarmed and attacked. In the open forums that can get really nasty and they can drown in the mob. This happened to a few newcomer Talimancers the other day I noticed. It wasn't pretty. The last reason I think we like Garrus discussion to happen in here is that we have analyzed him up, down, and sideways so if an intricate explanation is to be had for a problem, you are more likely to find it here than from some passersby in the general forums. I know character threads can lead to groupthink. I admit that and it can be hard for a newcomer to break in who doesn't like Garrus, but I still think bringing their problems here (provided they do so in a civil manner) is going to result in more constructive debate than doing so out in the main forums. After all, we have to keep things civil in here or we risk getting our own thread closed. Why would we want that? Flame wars and character bashing and all that would not help our cause because we would loose the place where we like to talk.
I told you it might be a monster wall of text.
