83 réponses à ce sujet

[In Exile]

So ostensibly DA:O was a first person narrative, according to Bioware's own nomenclature. ME2 (and ostensibly ME1) were supposed to be third person narratives. As I understand it, the difference is apparently regarding the degree to which you are your character, but this is something that's very confusing and difficult for me to understand.

I want to emphasize that the following thing I am going to say is a personal opinon, so please take it for granted and let's not debate it in the thread, but rather focus on the question I am going to ask.

For me, Shepard in ME1/ME2 felt much more like my character than the Warden in DA:O, or the protagonist in JE/KoTOR. To me, it is impossible to relate to a character unless that character is dynamically part of the acton. So long as I am free to adopt whatever personality I want, and within reason have the freedom to make decisions regarding that personality, I'm happy. I guess the best way to put it is that to me, role-playing and ownership was always much more like acting than writing.

In short - I felt like Shepard, in ME, was my character, while the silent protagonist was effectively always I lawn ornament that the story reflect off of. I know that not very many on this board felt the same way. What I would like to know, however, is why this is so? Why is Shepard the third person narrative, and not the first person? I guess I just can't appreciate the difference, and I would really like to understand it.

[Heimdall]

I actually agree with you. Shepard felt more like my character because he was actually involved in the story as opposed to a mute avatar. I always felt a little awkward with my character being the only one unable to speak.

[Wittand25]

I think that started just as an explanation why Shepard is much more restricted regarding customisation. ME is the first Bioware game with multiple races that did not allow you to choose your race and of course the dialog wheel meant that you lost control about the exact things Shepard said which was a completely new feature to the RPG genre and needed an explanation.

Modifié par Wittand25, 15 juillet 2010 - 05:46 .

[AndreaDraco]

Wittand25 wrote...

I think that started just as an explanation why Shepard is much more restricted regarding customisation. ME is the first Bioware game with multiple races that did not allow you to choose your race and of course the dialog wheel meant that you lost control about the exact things Shepard said which was a completely new feature to the RPG genre and needed an explanation.

Well, even KotOR didn't allow you to choose a race, and the background of the character was pretty much set in stone... Still, KotOR allowed for a good customization.

[Grommash94]

Indeed, the amount of people attached with their Revan is insane.

[Narreneth]

I feel more attached to my Shepard than I do to my Wardens as well. I have played ME2 over again a few times with the same import to just try the different classes. I couldn't get myself to try a different Shepard.



As far as the Warden went, I had no qualms about starting over again with a completely different Warden.



As for what makes something a third person vs. a first person narrative I think you already touched on it when you mentioned the level of control you have over your character.

[iTomes]

the point is that shepard is more involved into the world because hes a "fixed" character. he feels like youre character because mass effect is more a "black-white" game. to simplify it: theres a good heroic ethical absolutely correct choice or there is the oppsosite of it. dragon age didn't give you so simple choices so you couldn't say i want paragon points so i do the paragon thing. because of that and other things you didn't have "real" dialoques.

[Lord_Saulot]

Narreneth wrote...
As far as the Warden went, I had no qualms about starting over again with a completely different Warden. 

Same here!  And honestly, I'm pretty sure that is what was intended with the multiple origins.  I always thought that seeing Thedas from the different points of view was a bigger part of Origins than any specific version of the Warden.

[mopotter]

 I must be a very easy simple player. 

Shepard was my character but so was my warden.  In any of the games I play if I'm making the decision, I fall right into the character's brain.  I fall easier when it's a female because I can relate easier, but I fall almost as deep into my male characters, sometime playing them the way i think a guy should act,  which my husband sometimes finds very funny and sometimes agrees that yes he would do that.

it doesn't really matter to me if they have a real voice or not.  I actually like having a voice better than not, but I can see where if I didn't like the voice actor it would throw me off.

[Telum101]

For me, I couldn't relate to Shepard at all. I really couldn't tolerate the conversations, in that I wasn't always sure what Shepard would say, and I would often have to take a wild guess or base my choice on the paragon/renegade system rather than actually selecting what I thought would be appropriate. Coupled with the voice over, it just murdered the immersion for me. Overall it just felt like I was pulling the strings on Shepard instead of getting into the character.

[In Exile]

iTomes wrote...

the point is that shepard is more involved into the world because hes a "fixed" character. he feels like youre character because mass effect is more a "black-white" game. to simplify it: theres a good heroic ethical absolutely correct choice or there is the oppsosite of it. dragon age didn't give you so simple choices so you couldn't say i want paragon points so i do the paragon thing. because of that and other things you didn't have "real" dialoques.

Did we play the same game? Because DA:O was really, really black and white. The closest you got to a grey choice was in Redcliffe with Connor, except you could go get the mages no matter what, and huzzah! everyone still wins.

Where was the grey choice in DA? There was no morality metre, but it was still very black and white.

[In Exile]

Telum101 wrote...

For me, I couldn't relate to Shepard at all. I really couldn't tolerate the conversations, in that I wasn't always sure what Shepard would say, and I would often have to take a wild guess or base my choice on the paragon/renegade system rather than actually selecting what I thought would be appropriate. Coupled with the voice over, it just murdered the immersion for me. Overall it just felt like I was pulling the strings on Shepard instead of getting into the character.

Could you expand on why? Simply because my experience was the opposite. I really want to understand why the two of us looked at the same thing and came away with opposite conclusions. There had to be something there.

[El Codge]

mopotter wrote...

 I must be a very easy simple player. 

Shepard was my character but so was my warden.  In any of the games I play if I'm making the decision, I fall right into the character's brain.  I fall easier when it's a female because I can relate easier, but I fall almost as deep into my male characters, sometime playing them the way i think a guy should act,  which my husband sometimes finds very funny and sometimes agrees that yes he would do that.

it doesn't really matter to me if they have a real voice or not.  I actually like having a voice better than not, but I can see where if I didn't like the voice actor it would throw me off.

I'm right with you. I've never had problems playing other characters before: Link, Kyle Katarn, Solid Snake etc. ME and ME2 allows significant customisation of your avatar - gender, facial features and outfit, plus enough dialog options to form a personality unique to yourself.

The problem we've had is that Bioware have utterly and irrevocably spoiled us by creating the be all and end all of character customisations with Origins. I'm on my fourth playthrough and i'm still finding new things in familiar scenarios.

It comes down to time and budget - there isn't enough of either to tell a quality tale that accounts for full customisation. DA:O took 5 years - this is out in what, 8 months time?

Anyway, i'm looking forward to taking "Tomma" out on his adventures next year.

[iTomes]

In Exile wrote...

iTomes wrote...

the point is that shepard is more involved into the world because hes a "fixed" character. he feels like youre character because mass effect is more a "black-white" game. to simplify it: theres a good heroic ethical absolutely correct choice or there is the oppsosite of it. dragon age didn't give you so simple choices so you couldn't say i want paragon points so i do the paragon thing. because of that and other things you didn't have "real" dialoques.

Did we play the same game? Because DA:O was really, really black and white. The closest you got to a grey choice was in Redcliffe with Connor, except you could go get the mages no matter what, and huzzah! everyone still wins.

Where was the grey choice in DA? There was no morality metre, but it was still very black and white.

well i guess theres a difference between our opinions of black and white. for example the golems are pretty powerfull and of big use, but theres the whole soul-enslavement thing. or, to remain with the dwarfs: bhelen is just an .... but hes a very good king. or the mages: you get told that you can't be sure whose a bloodmage and whos not. so you must decide if you rather let some potential mass-murder live or rather kill them all.

[In Exile]

iTomes wrote..
well i guess theres a difference between our opinions of black and white. for example the golems are pretty powerfull and of big use, but theres the whole soul-enslavement thing. or, to remain with the dwarfs: bhelen is just an .... but hes a very good king. or the mages: you get told that you can't be sure whose a bloodmage and whos not. so you must decide if you rather let some potential mass-murder live or rather kill them all.

If you count the mages, you have to count the rachni. And if you count the golems, you have to count the council choice at the end of the game. I liked the choices in both games... but I didn't feel that DA:O had any more or less grey choices than other games.

To put it another way: I don't think creating the golems is ever moral. It's slavery. It's just a matter if you think it's justifiable. But then I'm the type of person that doesn't feel the need to say that everything I do is moral.

[Telum101]

In Exile wrote...

Telum101 wrote...

For me, I couldn't relate to Shepard at all. I really couldn't tolerate the conversations, in that I wasn't always sure what Shepard would say, and I would often have to take a wild guess or base my choice on the paragon/renegade system rather than actually selecting what I thought would be appropriate. Coupled with the voice over, it just murdered the immersion for me. Overall it just felt like I was pulling the strings on Shepard instead of getting into the character.

Could you expand on why? Simply because my experience was the opposite. I really want to understand why the two of us looked at the same thing and came away with opposite conclusions. There had to be something there.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure why.

To me, Shepard just felt unpredictable and scripted. When I was in a conversation, it was like Shepard had already decided what to do, and I was just there to give the go-ahead. One of my most memorable moments was when I was talking to Joker, and wanted to compliment the ship, so I chose the option stating "This is too good to be true", at which point Shepard completely derailed the conversation and proceeded to rant about Cerberus and how evil they are. There was no way for me to predict Shepard would say any of that.
That being said, I'm not complaining, since ME is supposed to be a 'cinematic experience' and I wouldn't expect to play as 'my own' character.

I'm guessing we just think and perceve things differently. It's like christianity and atheism, where niether side is really able to understand the other.


(BTW it's almost 3am here, forgive me if I don't make any sense)

[AllThatJazz]

 I feel more attached to my Shepard than my Warden. Because Mass Effect is ABOUT Shepard, s/he is the centre of the game in a more fundamental way than the Warden in DA:O. Bio's writers have said it themselves, that ME is Shepard's Trilogy. Perhaps in part because of the lack of choice when it came to things like choosing race, name, or even choosing whether to have started off in the Alliance, the ME writers are able to present a very tight narrative; because there aren't vast numbers of potential player choices to factor in to every convo/quest, it can focus in on the things that really matter to the story. 
I like my Wardens, and the story of Origins was great fun, but I can't quite escape the feeling that the characters I create are a bit generic, and that the impact they have on the world is mostly cosmetic. In a slightly weird way, too much choice hinders my ability to roleplay a character, I just feel a bit like I'm playing a template. Or, I'm just THAT crap a roleplayer. 

Maybe the difference between first and third person narrative is partly the difference between player choice (1st person) and depth of the narrative (3rd person), then, and your preference will depend on whether you place freedom to choose and customise before story or vice versa. Don't think there's a wrong way to play, just different ways. Regardless, looking forward to DA2.

Meh, sorry for not explaining myself too well. Interesting thread, though!x

[iTomes]

In Exile wrote...

iTomes wrote..
well i guess theres a difference between our opinions of black and white. for example the golems are pretty powerfull and of big use, but theres the whole soul-enslavement thing. or, to remain with the dwarfs: bhelen is just an .... but hes a very good king. or the mages: you get told that you can't be sure whose a bloodmage and whos not. so you must decide if you rather let some potential mass-murder live or rather kill them all.

If you count the mages, you have to count the rachni. And if you count the golems, you have to count the council choice at the end of the game. I liked the choices in both games... but I didn't feel that DA:O had any more or less grey choices than other games.

To put it another way: I don't think creating the golems is ever moral. It's slavery. It's just a matter if you think it's justifiable. But then I'm the type of person that doesn't feel the need to say that everything I do is moral.

yes but ME tells you whats good and whats bad. so when im in doubt whats good and whats bad i only have to look if its a paragon or a renegade answer. if its a renegade one its usually the more "evil" way to do it. so to take the circle of magi for an example: in ME system there would be "leave everybody alive" would be the paragon anwer, "kill everyone" the renegade one. so im already influded by that and know aha im the good guy and leave everybdy alive. even a bigger problem was that youre dialoque ability was conjucted with youre morality level so it was totally uneffective to make youre choice after what you think was right. AND sometimes a choice is called evil even if it wasn't. i mean, leaving the collector-base be sounds reasonable to me, but if i do it im suddenly evil! but thats a flaw of all games with morality system (one more reason for the black-white system btw).

[Demx]

Dragon Age: Origin is in a first person view, if you ignore the intro movies for the origin tales, which are told in second person view. As for ME2 not sure what to tell you, I haven't played it. It kind sounds weird if Shepard is narrating from a third person view, are you sure he is not using terms like "I, Me, We, or Us"?

[Demx]

Sorry about the double post

Modifié par Siradix, 15 juillet 2010 - 07:18 .

[In Exile]

iTomes wrote...
yes but ME tells you whats good and whats bad. so when im in doubt whats good and whats bad i only have to look if its a paragon or a renegade answer. if its a renegade one its usually the more "evil" way to do it. so to take the circle of magi for an example: in ME system there would be "leave everybody alive" would be the paragon anwer, "kill everyone" the renegade one. so im already influded by that and know aha im the good guy and leave everybdy alive. even a bigger problem was that youre dialoque ability was conjucted with youre morality level so it was totally uneffective to make youre choice after what you think was right. AND sometimes a choice is called evil even if it wasn't. i mean, leaving the collector-base be sounds reasonable to me, but if i do it im suddenly evil! but thats a flaw of all games with morality system (one more reason for the black-white system btw).

But DA:O tells you what is good and bad too. If Morrigan/Sten approve, it's usually bad (they approve of things like leaving Redcliffle to get overrun, using the golems, letting the mages die, allowing the captured elf slaves to have their lifeforce sucked away for your sake). If Leliana/Wynne/Alistair approve, it's usually good (they approve of things like saving the mages, helping Redcliffe, using the Circle to save Conner and his mother, not using the golems).

If you're talking about just gameplay reward, validating your choice DA:O does this direclty by establishing very black and white personalities for your characters and then having them approve or dissaprove based on your actions.It's not a morality system but it amounts to the same thing.

As for the Collector base  - they made humans slushee with it. You're giving it to the dude that spent the first game creating horrifying monstrous experiments to improve humanity. Sure, he says he doesn't know anything about it, but you've seen the evidence. And the plot of the third book in ME is (this isn't a spoiler - this is the online blurb) that the Illusive Man is trying to make a human reaper technology hybrid. Seriously, there is overwhelming evidence this is not a grey decision by any stretch.

[iTomes]

In Exile wrote...



But DA:O tells you what is good and bad too. If Morrigan/Sten approve, it's usually bad (they approve of things like leaving Redcliffle to get overrun, using the golems, letting the mages die, allowing the captured elf slaves to have their lifeforce sucked away for your sake). If Leliana/Wynne/Alistair approve, it's usually good (they approve of things like saving the mages, helping Redcliffe, using the Circle to save Conner and his mother, not using the golems).

If you're talking about just gameplay reward, validating your choice DA:O does this direclty by establishing very black and white personalities for your characters and then having them approve or dissaprove based on your actions.It's not a morality system but it amounts to the same thing.

As for the Collector base  - they made humans slushee with it. You're giving it to the dude that spent the first game creating horrifying monstrous experiments to improve humanity. Sure, he says he doesn't know anything about it, but you've seen the evidence. And the plot of the third book in ME is (this isn't a spoiler - this is the online blurb) that the Illusive Man is trying to make a human reaper technology hybrid. Seriously, there is overwhelming evidence this is not a grey decision by any stretch.

there is a difference. the characters in DA have their own personality. meaning that they have an oppinion which is not necessarily good or evil. thats something that was even stronger in DA:A (the architect). thats mentionable in things like the urn: if you destroy it you'll disaprove with sten even if he is "evil". and i think you disapproved with zevran (not sure about that one) if you sacrificed the elves. non of the characters is totally evil (except for morrigan maybe). besides that: if the game tells me that someone disapproves i can simply say "ahhh shut up jerk you have no idea whats important",  but if the game tells me "hey pal, you were just evil" thats different. and to stay with the illusive man: if you didn't read the book (and especially if you didn't read the books) its mainly a matter of trust. BUT the game tells me "trusting that guy is evil" then i KNOW this guy is evil. in dragon age one of my characters would TELL me that he didn't trusts the guy. thats something totally different, for nobody says my companions simply ate the truth

[Narreneth]

iTomes wrote...

In Exile wrote...

iTomes wrote...

the point is that shepard is more involved into the world because hes a "fixed" character. he feels like youre character because mass effect is more a "black-white" game. to simplify it: theres a good heroic ethical absolutely correct choice or there is the oppsosite of it. dragon age didn't give you so simple choices so you couldn't say i want paragon points so i do the paragon thing. because of that and other things you didn't have "real" dialoques.

Did we play the same game? Because DA:O was really, really black and white. The closest you got to a grey choice was in Redcliffe with Connor, except you could go get the mages no matter what, and huzzah! everyone still wins.

Where was the grey choice in DA? There was no morality metre, but it was still very black and white.

well i guess theres a difference between our opinions of black and white. for example the golems are pretty powerfull and of big use, but theres the whole soul-enslavement thing. or, to remain with the dwarfs: bhelen is just an .... but hes a very good king. or the mages: you get told that you can't be sure whose a bloodmage and whos not. so you must decide if you rather let some potential mass-murder live or rather kill them all.

Seems a silly thing to point out, but Bhelen isn't a good king.  When you read the blurb at the end after making him king he turns out to be a tyrant.  Essentially your choices there are between tyrant and a guy who is too nice.

That said, Bhelen framed his brother, so screw 'im.

[iTomes]

did you ever read the blurb when you made harrowmont king?????? i mean seriously! that guy just fails!

[Grommash94]

Narreneth wrote...

iTomes wrote...

In Exile wrote...

iTomes wrote...

the point is that shepard is more involved into the world because hes a "fixed" character. he feels like youre character because mass effect is more a "black-white" game. to simplify it: theres a good heroic ethical absolutely correct choice or there is the oppsosite of it. dragon age didn't give you so simple choices so you couldn't say i want paragon points so i do the paragon thing. because of that and other things you didn't have "real" dialoques.

Did we play the same game? Because DA:O was really, really black and white. The closest you got to a grey choice was in Redcliffe with Connor, except you could go get the mages no matter what, and huzzah! everyone still wins.

Where was the grey choice in DA? There was no morality metre, but it was still very black and white.

well i guess theres a difference between our opinions of black and white. for example the golems are pretty powerfull and of big use, but theres the whole soul-enslavement thing. or, to remain with the dwarfs: bhelen is just an .... but hes a very good king. or the mages: you get told that you can't be sure whose a bloodmage and whos not. so you must decide if you rather let some potential mass-murder live or rather kill them all.

Seems a silly thing to point out, but Bhelen isn't a good king.  When you read the blurb at the end after making him king he turns out to be a tyrant.  Essentially your choices there are between tyrant and a guy who is too nice.

That said, Bhelen framed his brother, so screw 'im.

But he also brings Orzammar back to its glory days by pushing the Darkspawn back and improving the caste thing. It sort of evens out realy.