13 réponses à ce sujet

[steamcamel]

I'm not sure if this is the right place for this post, but..

I am happy to say, that I am a huge fan of Bioware rpgs. I enjoyed playing both Mass Effect games as well as the Dragon Age games. In my opinion, Bioware is second to none when it comes to making story-driven rpgs. Simply because they know how to write excellent stories with interesting characters..
That being said, something recently occured to me...

As interesting and compelling as I find the sidecharacters and main story of these games, I feel that something can be done better when it comes to the main protagonists (Shepard and Hawke).  They are just not as interesting as they could be and I don't care about them, even though I really want to. Here's why:
I don't feel emotionally connected with them, because I don't get to know them like I get to know the side characters. For example, In Mass Effect 2, we were doing loyalty quests for our squad mates. They were going through a hard time, but they pulled through and we got to know them as people. This added depth to the characters and we cared about them. With Shepard and Hawke we don't see or feel them as a person. Sure, you can create a Shepard who lost a lot of people or family in the past, but you never see this.

All I really know about Shepard is that he is tough and gets the job done no matter what, but talking and acting tough is not what makes a character interesting. It's seeing and feeling that characters obstacles and successes that makes him interesting, not being told about it. If I see the events that define him, I can get emotionally involved and know something about him outside of the fact that he is a cool and efficient soldier. If I dont know him as a person or what drives him, then I don't care about him.

I never really get to know Shepard as a person, because I don't see or feel the events that defines him as this hero of humanity. And there is no character development at all.

The same can be said about Hawke, the main protagonist of Dragon Age 2...
Because the story of Dragon Age 2 lacks focus and I only see bits and pieces of Hawke's life, I never really get to know him or care about him. Sure, I see him losing his brother or sister to an ogre, and his mother, but the problem is his robot-like reaction. I wanted to feel sorry for Hawke, but I just couldn't because Hawke reacted with the same emotional response as a refridgerator magnet, and I felt like I was watching a cheap soap opera.
I just couldnt get emotionally involved with him, and If I don't get emotionally involved with the protagonists I'm playing, then I don't care about them. Even worse: It doesnt even feel as if losing a  sibling and mother defines Hawke as a person. He just continues being the same boring guy afterwards. You would expect a guy who experienced something like that to go from being the gentle, likeable Hawke we see in the intro, to being full of rage or sadness or be driven by strong emotions. But alas, he just stays the same Hawke throughout the game. It doesnt feel like he's growing and evolving as a person. He just doesnt feel real.

This is also the reason why I felt the romances of both games to be boring. I don't see or feel the emotional consequences of the relationships. In Mass Effect 1 and 2 nothing happens after you engage in a romance. You just get to call your newfound love on the intercom and have them sit on the couch with you or lying on the bed.

Let me give an example of how a main protagonist can be more interesting and compelling: Max Payne 1.

We were there when he lost his wife, his newborn child and good life to some killer junkies. It changed him and made him a vendictive character. We felt his anger and he felt real. The main protagonists of Dragon Age and Mass Effect doesn't feel real.

I am no expert in writing, but I feel that what the protagonists in Bioware's rpgs needs some more depth to them in order for them to feel more real and therefore more interesting to play. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it feels as if the side characters have an arc, but the protagonist doesnt. It would be nice if:

a) we got to see the protagonist more as a person with some depth to him, and not just a cardboard-cutout badass soldier or noble/evil medieval person.

we play the protagonist and see him faced with the overwhelming, lifechanging  event that defines him instead of just being told about it.

c) the voice acting of the main protagonist had some more emotional range so we could see our main character as a more real person and not just a flat and uninteresting stereotype. Don't get me wrong: the voice actors did a great job, but I know it is possible to add more depth to the main characters so we care more about them. Merle Dandridge pulled this off sublimely when she played Alyx Vance in Half-Life 2.

I know the recording sessions are being wrapped up for Mass Effect 3 as I'm writing these lines, but it would be nice to see a protagonist in future Bioware games that feels more real and interesting to play for the reasons mentioned above. As I said, nobody beats Bioware when it comes to writing cool characters and storylines, but I really feel like there's room for improvement when it comes to the main protagonist.

I would very much like  to play a main protagonist that I can get emotionally involved with.  Not just a hero who is a hero because he destroys the Alpha mass relay to prevent the reapers from reaching earth before the official release date of the next Mass Effect game.

Modifié par steamcamel, 01 mai 2011 - 10:57 .

[termokanden]

In a way Shepard is not supposed to be 100% defined already. You might see that as generic, but really it's because you're supposed to shape the character through your choices. It's the same with Hawke. YOU are supposed to give them a personality.

It's not really fair to compare Shepard to Vance or Max Payne because you don't roleplay those characters.

[GroovieBuff]

That is a complaint I've heard often.

Truth is, I prefer the sort of "tabula rasa" Shepard. After making Shepard in my likeness, I felt a bit more immersed in the game. It probably had a lot to do with the whole moral choice system. Since I'm from snowy minnesota, where we always say nice things, it genuinely felt like I was Shepard.

I didn't care about Shepard's past. Since I am Shepard, her past is mine. In accordance to this...Shepard worked at a movie theatre for three years, hated every moment of high school, and loves gyros.

Dumb...but yeah.

Modifié par GroovieBuff, 02 mai 2011 - 11:01 .

[Manic Sheep]

It’s an rpg. The whole point is that you are meant extrapolate on what you are given and come up with most of this stuff yourself. You also should be doing most the introspective stuff on your own. Most people don’t like it when bioware forces a line of reasoning on your character. Shepard never develops as a character if you don’t develop him/her and you cannot compare a protagonist in a structured rpg to a fully fleshed out protagonist.

Modifié par Manic Sheep, 02 mai 2011 - 11:16 .

[CulturalGeekGirl]

Most protagonists in "set character" RPGs are like Romeo and Juliet - we learn about them based on the way the story acts upon them, and they go through highs and lows as good and bad things happen to them. Their character devlopment is overt and often openly stated, but entirely tied to the events of the story.

Protagonists in "character creation" RPGs are like Sherlock Holmes - we learn about them through their conversations with people, and their actions, rather than over-the-top monologues or personal crises. Their character development is inferred, and they are not battered and twisted by events, rather events serve only to offer us further clues to their underlying personalities.

These are two very different kinds of characters. I prefer Sherlock Holmes to Romeo, which is why I prefer Shepard to Tidus.

[GroovieBuff]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Most protagonists in "set character" RPGs are like Romeo and Juliet - we learn about them based on the way the story acts upon them, and they go through highs and lows as good and bad things happen to them. Their character devlopment is overt and often openly stated, but entirely tied to the events of the story.

Protagonists in "character creation" RPGs are like Sherlock Holmes - we learn about them through their conversations with people, and their actions, rather than over-the-top monologues or personal crises. Their character development is inferred, and they are not battered and twisted by events, rather events serve only to offer us further clues to their underlying personalities.

These are two very different kinds of characters. I prefer Sherlock Holmes to Romeo, which is why I prefer Shepard to Tidus.

Well said, good fellow.

[aimlessgun]

In Mass Effect, like in the classic roleplaying game, pen and paper DnD, the responsibility is on you to write the character.

steamcamel wrote...
Let me give an example of how a main protagonist can be more interesting and compelling: Max Payne 1.

We were there when he lost his wife, his newborn child and good life to some killer junkies. It changed him and made him a vendictive character. We felt his anger and he felt real. The main protagonists of Dragon Age and Mass Effect doesn't feel real.

You can easily write something like this into your Shepard's story, and then find places in the game where it would come through. There are so many interactions in Mass Effect that unless you're creating a background completely out of left feild, there will be places to express it.

I understand if you prefer to sit back and be told the story instead of taking an active part in writing it. However I encourage you to try, it is extremely fun and rewarding. Have confidence: the game devs are not the only storytelling authority! You have the power as well.

[Clonedzero]

in a game like this you have to make the protagonists set personality and backround alittle vague to allow for choice without it being, well dumb.

in Red Dead Redemption, there was a morality meter, you could be good/evil. but the main story you were a ex-gunslinger turned outlaw with a heart of gold. being all goody goody in cutscenes then blasting an entire town on your way to your objective once its playable. made the morality meter mean absolutely nothing lol.

basically you can either have predefined characters in just about every way. they will say what they say, and act how they act and you just play the fights basically.

OR

you can have choice, you can pick what your character does, what they say, how the react in situations, what they do. ect. and still do all the fights.

you cant have both. its just impossible to write that way. doesnt work.

Modifié par Clonedzero, 03 mai 2011 - 03:48 .

[GuardianAngel470]

You ARE Shepard. If you don't feel an emotional connection to the character you don't feel a connection with yourself.

Let me elaborate on exactly what I'm trying to convey. Story driven RPG's are unique. They offer something that no other medium can hope to provide and even it's fellow video game genres fail to take advantage of just what makes them unique.

The RPG genre is the single most exemplary genre of video games. No not because it creates awesome characters or because it has cool skill trees but because it is the one genre that fully takes advantage of the video game medium's unique qualities. Shooters are an interactive movie with linear progression and set characters. Fighting games are for the most part just mindless fun, embodying no underlying artistic value in and of themselves. Hack and slashes, while awesome, are also just interactive movies.

RPG's let the player shape the story, they let the player make the protagonist whatever they want him or her to be. This type of experience cannot be done with any other existing art medium. RPG's typify video games as an art form because they let players into the story, they let players shape the story.

In the early 1800's, around 1829, Louise Daguerre and Joseph Niepce finalized and patented the first ever mechanic camera and the technology of film. Though rudimentary and with significant flaws, the daguerrotype method of photography spawned a revolution in the art world that lasted nearly a century.

Despite the fact that cameras could create highly detailed and highly accurate copies of people, places, and events it took literally decades for photography to be recognized as an art form. Photographic artists tried everything to get their medium recognized, going so far as to emulate existing artistic qualities like blur. Negatives of scenes were scratched to make them look like pencil drawings, focus was distorted to make them look more like existing paintings and drawings.

Because of this blatant copying, the art community was able to simply ignore photography as an art medium even as it took business away from portrait painters.

Do you know what finally got photography to be recognized? Artists like Timothy O'Sullivan, Ansel Adams, and Richard Avadon that took advantage of the medium's strengths instead of trying to copy the art of the day.

Now why is any of that relevant? Because asking for a protagonist in an RPG to follow traditional storytelling conventions is a detriment to the video game medium's strengths. What Mass Effect and DA2 do in regards to the protagonist's "development" is unique. Instead of telling the player what the character is like they let the player decide.

No other medium of any sort can claim this. Personally I think Mass Effect and DA2 are doing just fine.

Modifié par GuardianAngel470, 03 mai 2011 - 07:46 .

[Shinobu]

Have you tried Dragon Age:Origins? The story is in 1st person POV that really makes the Warden your avatar instead of a character whose story you partially control. Having no voiced dialogue for the PC lets you imagine it's *your* voice saying the lines, which I find more immersive than choosing a shorthand version and having an actor say something I didn't intend. (I love FemShep's VA, but couldn't warm up to FemHawke's voice at all.) DA:O did the best job of making a game that felt like actual *role-playing*, IMO.

[ItsFreakinJesus]

CulturalGeekGirl wrote...

Most protagonists in "set character" RPGs are like Romeo and Juliet - we learn about them based on the way the story acts upon them, and they go through highs and lows as good and bad things happen to them. Their character devlopment is overt and often openly stated, but entirely tied to the events of the story.

Protagonists in "character creation" RPGs are like Sherlock Holmes - we learn about them through their conversations with people, and their actions, rather than over-the-top monologues or personal crises. Their character development is inferred, and they are not battered and twisted by events, rather events serve only to offer us further clues to their underlying personalities.

These are two very different kinds of characters. I prefer Sherlock Holmes to Romeo, which is why I prefer Shepard to Tidus.

Pretty much this.  And while I like both types of RPG's equally, I prefer Shepard to Tidus too, not for the reasons you stated, but because Tidus was a horrible character.  Squall, Cloud, and Zidane are a hell of a lot better. 

[abnocte]

steamcamel wrote...

The same can be said about Hawke, the main protagonist of Dragon Age 2...
Because the story of Dragon Age 2 lacks focus and I only see bits and pieces of Hawke's life, I never really get to know him or care about him. Sure, I see him losing his brother or sister to an ogre, and his mother, but the problem is his robot-like reaction. I wanted to feel sorry for Hawke, but I just couldn't because Hawke reacted with the same emotional response as a refridgerator magnet, and I felt like I was watching a cheap soap opera.
I just couldnt get emotionally involved with him, and If I don't get emotionally involved with the protagonists I'm playing, then I don't care about them. Even worse: It doesnt even feel as if losing a  sibling and mother defines Hawke as a person. He just continues being the same boring guy afterwards. You would expect a guy who experienced something like that to go from being the gentle, likeable Hawke we see in the intro, to being full of rage or sadness or be driven by strong emotions. But alas, he just stays the same Hawke throughout the game. It doesnt feel like he's growing and evolving as a person. He just doesnt feel real.

In a RPG you are suposed to be the one who decides how such events affect your character. That's why you get dialog options.

When my LadyHawke lost her mother *I* was the one that started choosing dialog options to reflect that, usually the aggresive ones, and moved her into a more of anti-mage mentality.
But I could have chosen that my LadyHawke never really cared about her family, and continue to roleplay her as always. Once again, *you* are the one who choses that.

A whole different matter is how that dialog options usually fall short when delivering emotion.

The problem I had with ME2 is that I had to wait to LotSB to have the option to show how my Shep was affected by the events. I mean, she died and the only thing she has to say is: "Two years? I have been gone for so long?" and then is as if the whole thing never happened, even worse was with my Sole Survivor that knew that Cerberus was behind the Threser maw attack to her unit. She can't never complain and then Tela Vasir ( name? the asari spectre ) rubs it in her face.

But I don't want the game to "tell" me how my Shep feels and reacts to things, I want be able to choose that.

[Zubie]

RPG protagonists (especially in bioware games) are whatever you make of them.

[hawat333]

The protagonist is usually just as boring as the player is.
You can build up an interesting character, a conflicted personality, and the decisions you make are your tool for that.
Well, of course if you play a Renegade only or Paragaon only character, it'll become dull and boring.
That's why many of us doesn't do that.

a) We see him/her as the person behind the uniform. His/her acts define that person. Spiced up with some imagination (a definite need for any RPG players to be honest), you get the human being.
Fighting the greatest threat in galactic history - that's the overwhelming, life-changing event. That's what we are doing there. You can have character development, if you play the game out that way. I, for example, have a character who uses more and more violent means to reach a conclusion because his ideals are broken, along the path he learns that -for him at least- diplomacy can lead to very dangerous outcomes and he becomes -in ME terms- more and more renegade. Here you go, a life-changing event, character progression.
c) That's a delicate matter indeed. The thing is, in the game a paragon attitude can follow a renegade one, so the dialogue consistency is best kept together with using a more or less general tone with some occasional extremities. One thing great about DA2 is the general tone based on your previous attitude. That would change things here too, in case it gets included.

But that's only my opinion on the matter.