135 réponses à ce sujet

[ScooterPie88]

Sure we need to have more dialogue. Hundreds of hours isn't enough. It should be tens of thousands. Who cares if the game comes out 20 years from now while they record meaningless dialogue; I'm all for that.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

Sure we need to have more dialogue. Hundreds of hours isn't enough. It should be tens of thousands. Who cares if the game comes out 20 years from now while they record meaningless dialogue; I'm all for that.

We already got 12 fracking squadmates in ME2, and they seemed to have no problem filling out the dialog for every one.

Inserting 4 lines into a conversation here or there and appropriate character responses doesn't equate to doubling or even tripling the game's size. I mean, that'd just be idiotic.

What I'm talking about is giving the character more depth and appeal to more players outside of the "Shallow Badass Protagonist" fanclub (which is popular in the gaming culture, but not so popular with non-gamers and people who actually like deep characters), and to allow players more options in how they play their character, which is really what the Mass Effect series is all about, right?

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 12 novembre 2010 - 12:33 .

[Destroy Raiden_]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

Shepard crying over the loss of his buddy in a firefight would = out of character and over-emotional for a former Spectre and N7 specialist.

Having him show the occasional smile or frown would make the character more expressive, and thus more believable (which ME2 does).

Giving the player a conversation in which other characters can chastise Shepard for his actions, and being able to have Shepard say:
A) "You're questioning my decision? It was the only way, you fool!"
"Not a day goes by where I don't question my own actions. Any commander who doesn't would be unfit for duty, but I chose the most practical route, and it worked."
or
C) "I've never forgotten about that. It pains me every day that I had to make that choice. I have nightmares and flashbacks about the things I've done, but that's the price every soldier has to pay. We all have to keep fighting."
OR
D) "It's just part of the job. If you can't put things like that behind you and still go on, you're not fit to lead."

...isn't emo. It just would make Shepard seem more interesting if he was put on the spot to do some inward reflecting. Less like a brick, more like an actual individual, if you get my drift. The robotic tooliness that characters like Master Chief and Duke Nukem are characterized by may be a staple for protagonists in the games industry, but in the context of what Bioware's trying to do with the Mass Effect series, it isn't as acceptable. And not everyone buys into that stereotype, which is what the heart of this argument is.

^ That. I'd be happy w/ that!

[Chuvvy]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
Having him show the occasional smile or frown would make the character more expressive, and thus more believable (which ME2 does).

It's believable that he's a child molester.

[tacobelldog]

I am glad this thread was created. The lack of emotional impact in mass effect 2 was frustrating. The general idea of mass effect its universe's protagonists like Shepard is fantastic. . 

Modifié par tacobelldog, 12 novembre 2010 - 03:33 .

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Slidell505 wrote...

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
Having him show the occasional smile or frown would make the character more expressive, and thus more believable (which ME2 does).

It's believable that he's a child molester.

Boom. Ya gat me.

But it's funnier than it is mood-breaking, tbh.

[Gibb_Shepard]

ScooterPie88 wrote...

Sure we need to have more dialogue. Hundreds of hours isn't enough. It should be tens of thousands. Who cares if the game comes out 20 years from now while they record meaningless dialogue; I'm all for that.

You're just disagreeing for the fun of it aren't you? I lol'd at your ridiculously over exaggerated amount of hours of dialogue. No one wants that amount of dialogue, just a couple lines of optional self reflection every now and then.

[Fraevar]

NewMessageN00b wrote...

The concept of breadth and depth clashes here. It's much harder to care for a mob of deep characters than one deep character. Heck, I'll start forgetting why I cared for that one character, while getting to know the other. I doubt all should be even willing to share anything (aka Zaeed), because it does quite fit them to be minding their own business.

I think you're on track here but I think the main issue in ME2 is that the developers stretched themselves way too thin because they insisted on 12 squadmembers. Yes, we have hundreds of hours or dialogue, but it doesn't matter as much as you'd think when it as a rule defaults to talking to characters two or three times over the course of the whole game and then it cuts off completely if they're not being romanced. That isn't really believable, nor is Shepard's brick-status.

This game was meant to be about Commander Shepard overcoming death, having to face a new threat and the necessity of having Shepard use all of her leadership ability in making the diverse new group work together. Instead, what we have is a brick that runs around collecting dolls that don't have any development outside of their loyalty missions and then in *two* out of twelve cases, a post-mission confrontation that can be solved by a Paragon/Renegade check.

But I digress - I'm getting off base here. Shepard in ME2 is very much molded after the "iconic" heroes of post-2000 action gaming, like the Master Chief. This presents a problem as traditionally, this is not what BioWare fans look to as being very inspirational. I for one, avoid Halo like the plague because I honestly cannot stand how bland the Chief is. So when I play a BioWare game, a game that in the past managed to make silent protagonists much more layered than what other studios did with full voice, it is a huge disappointment to see BioWare adding voice and justifying having one protagonist as being better for cinematic development and then completely ignoring one core point of any cinematic feature: That the protagonist themselves need to develop in a meaningful way for the audience to connect with them.

[Fixers0]

As i said, Shepards serves as mere Conduit for us to mass effect , this is more noticable in Mass Effect 2 the in Mass Effect 1 because shepard's In Mass effect 2 seems to loss every sense of humanity as well as the ability to make intelligent choices.

[Fraevar]

Fixers0 wrote...

As i said, Shepards serves as mere Conduit for us to mass effect , this is more noticable in Mass Effect 2 the in Mass Effect 1 because shepard's In Mass effect 2 seems to loss every sense of humanity as well as the ability to make intelligent choices.

Not to mention that in Mass Effect, the writers managed to instill a sense of Shepard being the right person for the job at the right time, by giving her the Prothean visions. Those made her integral to the story, and it meant the major conflict could not be resolved without her giving it her all. In Mass Effect 2 I never really got the sense that Shepard was all that necessary. TIM *says* she is, but the supposedly legendary leadership skills Shepard has are never really put to use unless you count those two Paragon/Renegade checks with Jack/Miranda and Tali/Legion.

[SimonTheFrog]

My opinion is, similar to what has been pointed out already, that Shepard is a vehicle... a mechanism to move through the story. He or she is similar to a canvas on which you have the game paint all the experiences one after the other. If Shepard has too much of his or her own personality, than this will greatly influence your experience. Or to stay in the image: if the canvas has a very rough or distinct structure than no matter how much paint you use, it will always be a dominant part of the experience.



So, maybe a boring Shepard is not as bad as it might seem from the start. And i wouldn't use the term boring but more like reserved, composed.



Which is probably why so many heroes in games are rather quiet and without profile of their own. They are not used as characters but as canvas.



BUT, i wonder if this isn't a tradition that should be broken at some point. It would have to be done carefully and with great skill because people have very different feelings towards emotional characters. The term "emo" came up. It's been used to bash the idea of an emotional hero, obviously, but i think the underlying fear is that if the hero shows emotions that the player cannot connect to, then the player will be alienated from the hero. It's like being rubbed up the wrong way. And that easily leads to putting the game away and telling all your friends that it sucks (even though it actually doesn't, it just didn't work for that player emotionally).

I'd be careful what i'd wish for, concerning this subject.

[deleted]

Shepard is not boring, he is just stronger than everyone else. Even his mother says so in ME1 when he has to deal with an PTSD suffering acquaintance.

A too expressive character is frustrating if he reacts in a way opposed to what the player would have felt in the same situation. (EDIT: like SimonTheFrog mentions) I thought Bioware gave Shepard enough good lines to surprise us, and enough passivity to avoid breaking our vision of what Shepard is like.

I find the "strong, silent" personality appealing, and just because Shepard doesn't express his emotions doesn't mean he has none. It's left to the player to imagine what's going on in his head, and it's more fun that way. Overly emotional scenes in movies and games make me cringe, especially if paired with a moody, tearful soundtrack. They try to force feelings on you that are only yours to experience.

[Fixers0]

deleted wrote...

Shepard is not boring, he is just stronger than everyone else. Even his mother says so in ME1 when he has to deal with an PTSD suffering acquaintance.
A too expressive character is frustrating if he reacts in a way opposed to what the player would have felt in the same situation. (EDIT: like SimonTheFrog mentions) I thought Bioware gave Shepard enough good lines to surprise us, and enough passivity to avoid breaking our vision of what Shepard is like.
I find the "strong, silent" personality appealing, and just because Shepard doesn't express his emotions doesn't mean he has none. It's left to the player to imagine what's going on in his head, and it's more fun that way. Overly emotional scenes in movies and games make me cringe, especially if paired with a moody, tearful soundtrack. They try to force feelings on you that are only yours to experience.

Still he lacks any kind of  humanity and can't make logical decisions, there were tons of moments where better and oftern mor logical decision could be made but even at moment where we can choose how Shepard's reacts to situations we lack the intelligent choices.

[Fraevar]

deleted wrote...

I find the "strong, silent" personality appealing, and just because Shepard doesn't express his emotions doesn't mean he has none. It's left to the player to imagine what's going on in his head, and it's more fun that way. Overly emotional scenes in movies and games make me cringe, especially if paired with a moody, tearful soundtrack. They try to force feelings on you that are only yours to experience.

But do you understand the people who want the option of expression, especially given the voice-over? My main frustration with the status quo is that I see little to no point of Shepard being either voiced or pre-defined if there's no character development going on. I agree that BioWare should not force emotions or specific developments on the player, but they should be offering options for the player to develop their Shepard more through dialogue and more self-reflecting cutscenes. In ME2, Shepard is everyone else's universal problem solver, but we had to wait 8 months for a DLC before she was finally allowed to express how she feels about the whole thing.

This should not have been a random side-thing, it should have been the core of what made up ME2's plot, given what BioWare kept saying prior to release. BioWare needs to provide more of these personal development options for Shepard, and if your Shepard is a stoic badass, then just pick the lower-right option on the wheel and get out of the situation. But for those who want more development for Shepard, the option should be there.

[deleted]

Fixers0 wrote...

Still he lacks any kind of  humanity and can't make logical decisions, there were tons of moments where better and oftern mor logical decision could be made but even at moment where we can choose how Shepard's reacts to situations we lack the intelligent choices.

I was frustrated as well by some illogical moments of the game where the choice you wanted wasn't available, like in those poorly thought up surveys. I guess it's due to the binary nature of the conversation wheel : you can have only one renegade answer and one paragon, with a neutral "filler". In real life, you can say anything, but the limited resources of the game make it so that you have to remove a lot of possibilities. This is why Shepard does lack a human part at some points of the game. But his saving the galaxy (and humanity for that matter) compensates for this, wouldn't you agree? 

[JG The Gamer]

In the first Mass Effect, I was alright with Meer's voice. Was good, not great. At times, Meer seemed a bit uncomfortable in spots. Hale's voice was phenomenal in the first game. Liked her voice as a Renegade better than a Paragon.



However in Mass Effect 2, I liked Meer's voice better than Hale's. Meer felt more comfortable in the role by this time. Hale on the other hand, there was something wrong. In almost every scene, she came off as either really husky, or borderline emotionless. Left me thinking 'what the hell' at times based on how she spoke.



That said, if you find Shepard boring, make him/her interesting. Let your character's words or actions speak for themselves. Build a more elaborate background for your Shepard. What's his/her story? What's their motives? All that and more gives the Mass Effect series the replay value it has. I'm running my 8th and 9th Shepards right now.

[deleted]

Delerius_Jedi wrote...

deleted wrote...

I find the "strong, silent" personality appealing, and just because Shepard doesn't express his emotions doesn't mean he has none. It's left to the player to imagine what's going on in his head, and it's more fun that way. Overly emotional scenes in movies and games make me cringe, especially if paired with a moody, tearful soundtrack. They try to force feelings on you that are only yours to experience.

But do you understand the people who want the option of expression, especially given the voice-over? My main frustration with the status quo is that I see little to no point of Shepard being either voiced or pre-defined if there's no character development going on. I agree that BioWare should not force emotions or specific developments on the player, but they should be offering options for the player to develop their Shepard more through dialogue and more self-reflecting cutscenes. In ME2, Shepard is everyone else's universal problem solver, but we had to wait 8 months for a DLC before she was finally allowed to express how she feels about the whole thing.

This should not have been a random side-thing, it should have been the core of what made up ME2's plot, given what BioWare kept saying prior to release. BioWare needs to provide more of these personal development options for Shepard, and if your Shepard is a stoic badass, then just pick the lower-right option on the wheel and get out of the situation. But for those who want more development for Shepard, the option should be there.

While giving as much choice as possible is always a good idea, I suspect that the solution you've given might take huge amounts of time and resources to implement. So making Shepard neutral and stoic (or bland depending on your perception  ) is the "safe" choice when faced with limited resources as it is the least likely to significantly alter the gaming experience. The less information is displayed, the less likely players will experience "story shock".
I guess I'm just lucky to be able to like that kind of neutralness : I know others will dislike Stoic Shepard, but it's still the least risky solution.

Modifié par deleted, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:06 .

[Phaedon]

JG, you have a valid point.

Hale might be more popular on these boards, but I can't help but feel that in ME2 she got worse.

Modifié par Phaedon, 12 novembre 2010 - 04:02 .

[Fraevar]

Phaedon wrote...

JG, you have a valid point.

Hale might be more popular on these boards, but I can't help but feel that in ME2 she got worse.

I would blame that on the more action/hero stereotypical tone that the Shepard writing took in ME2. I think it's amazing she manages as well as she does with that material, honest truth.

@The limited ressources issue: In complete agreement - which again leads back to BioWare using what they have better. Think of how intense the game would have been with 6 squadmembers and situations that required deep and layered involvement from Shepard, as opposed to polar Paragon/Renegade persuades? I want to play that game!

[mopotter]

Phaedon wrote...

JG, you have a valid point.

Hale might be more popular on these boards, but I can't help but feel that in ME2 she got worse.

the only time I found her worse was when she talked to Jacob.  That was a bad.  Just really bad.

[Shotokanguy]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

My take on it is that ME1 did a better job of offering the player opportunities to define their individual characters through actual dialog with NPCs, rather than just leaving it up to the player's imagination. Shepard's convo with Mordin about the ethics involved with his genophage work was an example of how Shepard can be defined in this way; IMO it gives the character depth and the player the opportunity to define Shepard further than just choosing naughty/nice options from the dialog menu. 

If this is what characterization is for Shepard, I don't know what more people would want. There are plenty of moments through both games like that.

[JG The Gamer]

Well when the technology arises, maybe we'll one day be able to virtually interface with Shepard in a virtual world. Then we can have perfect characterization because our ideals of characterization is second to none.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Shotokanguy wrote...

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

My take on it is that ME1 did a better job of offering the player opportunities to define their individual characters through actual dialog with NPCs, rather than just leaving it up to the player's imagination. Shepard's convo with Mordin about the ethics involved with his genophage work was an example of how Shepard can be defined in this way; IMO it gives the character depth and the player the opportunity to define Shepard further than just choosing naughty/nice options from the dialog menu. 

If this is what characterization is for Shepard, I don't know what more people would want. There are plenty of moments through both games like that.

Not quite. I tried to use that scene as an example of a convo that actually allows Shepard to express his/her thoughts on a particular subject that then helps to define him/her as a character. But you don't only get the opportunity to define some of your character's beliefs; you can actually have them change.

Before Mordin told me about the actual use of the genophage and its balancing nature, my Shepard was totally against it. However, after the argument, I decided to be much more neutral and understanding about it with him. In fact, Shepard was even in partial agreement with Mordin afterwards because I decided there that my Shepard was practical enough to be able to see the wisdom and insight in Mordin's argument, and there was a dialog option for this.
So there's a perfect example of character development initiated by the player (and, IMO, the best example in ME2).

ME1 still had more of those moments, however, and they tended to be more frequent (I can remember no less than 5 UNC sidequests off the top of my head that allowed for important character-defining moments like this). The thing that ME1 had, that I miss, though, were the more personal character-building moments.

In ME1, you could love/hate poetry, you could be religious/spiritual/atheist and were given the ability to have Shepard even express his bewilderment at the idea that there's a God, you could support C-Sec's strict regulations or you could openly disagree with their rules, you had every opportunity to support a unified, multi-species Council or a humans-first government, you could be openly xenophobic (which was natural, since Bioware made specism one of the major themes in the first game), etc. etc...
It just felt like ME1 was always giving you the opportunity to define Shepard the way you wanted (with limitations, naturally), while ME2 kind of dropped that vision and went with a "choose-your-own-adventure" approach instead (in other words, Shepard is treated as an extension of YOU, rather than a character who can be assigned different beliefs and personalities).

And before anyone claims that Shepard IS supposed to be just an extension of you, the player, remember that Mass Effect is a third-person narrative as opposed to a first-person narrative like DA:O (and especially RPGs like Morrowind). You're taking a predefined character through a story, but you can shape that character to an extent. Options to define Shepard shouldn't force you into changing your character too much, but allowing you some options to define him/her to an extent (such as their sexuality, religious faith, etc.) would definitely make the character more intriguing to a lot of players.