2338 réponses à ce sujet

[Asenza]

yorkj86 wrote...

The whole set up seems overly-wrought, in order to make Samara's character develop on personal suffering. This isn't sadism, anymore, this is villainy.

Like the writers are going, "No! No happiness or peace for you ever! Never!"

@Xilizhra,
I don't know if Samara has over-written her initial personality or not. She is very old. Most of it would have something to do with becoming a Justicar, I imagine but the number of years she has lived would defintely have a hand in either changing or muting her personality.

Modifié par Asenza, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:41 .

[Xilizhra]

I wonder if they just didn't know what to do with Samara?

Also, I don't think her emotions have really developed properly over the last few centuries; the whole justicar thing has definitely done some twisting.

Modifié par Xilizhra, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:27 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Asenza wrote...

yorkj86 wrote...

The whole set up seems overly-wrought, in order to make Samara's character develop on personal suffering. This isn't sadism, anymore, this is villainy.

Like the writers are going, "No! No happiness or peace for you ever! Never!"

That's, uh, pretty much what they did in ME2.

Samara's development and character trajectory was never in the pursuit of happiness.

@Xilhizra,

I don't know if Samara has over-written her initial personality or not. She is very old. Most of it would have something to do with becoming a Justicar, I imagine but the number of years she has lived would defintely have a hand in either changing or muting her personality.

She was indoctrinated.

(The classical, not reaper, sense of the word.)

Justicar training is like military training: it's meant to change you.

[Asenza]

@ Dean the Young,

Well, of course. One doesn't enter a monastic order in which all possessions and family are given up in adherence to a rigid code of justice in the pursuit of happiness.

But she did want peace, at least within herself, for Morinth's actions across the galaxy and killing Morinth accomplished that. So she did achieve it in ME2.

Corrupting her daughters, literally all she has left in the world, well... it's retreading old ground. Because it's the same storyline. If Samara gets abused too much, well then that's the writers going into desperate mode to try and make me feel something.

As the great Limyaael said:

"Most fantasy authors misjudge the scale of the abuse... A suffering character inspires tears and pity, but not a whole lot else. The author introduces a character who was beaten by her mother. And raped by her father. And had her teddy bear ripped apart. And who was neglected. And whose beloved brother died trying to protect her. And whose uncle starved her. And whose sister died in a fire for which the character blames herself. And whose magic was weak enough to get her teased by the other children in the mage school. And who was tortured by the bad guys. The author is screaming at me, insisting, “This character is in such pain that you can’t even imagine it!”

Yes. Exactly.

Increase the pain too much, and my imaginative connection with the character snaps. She becomes a blank to me, just a body for the author to heap fictional torture on. I don’t feel about her the same way I do about a victim of atrocities in the real world, because the author has reminded me that it’s all make-believe; the only reason this person is suffering so much is because the author wants her to. You could call it numbness or shock, I suppose, but it resembles indifference too much to escape that name for me. I just don’t care any more about what happens to this person, because the pain has gotten ridiculous."


It'd be like if Miranda's mission was all about saving her sister again (oh, wait), or if Jack had to go back to the Pragia crater.

Modifié par Asenza, 07 décembre 2011 - 02:57 .

[Xilizhra]

Going after her other two daughters, literally all she has left in the world, well... it's retreading old ground. Because they it's the same storyline.

Really, she doesn't have them either. She already got rid of them.

[Dean_the_Young]

Agreed, Xil. Samara abandoned her family long before mankind escaped Earth's atmosphere.


@ Asenza

It's not like the genetic-uniqueness of the Ardat Yakshi hasn't been put forward before. Even Cerberus wanted to study Morinth (or her corpse) in ME2, and the Reaper interest in 'genetically unique specimens' has been long since established.

Plot threads left hanging are exactly the sort that warrant being used again. While Jack's plot with Pragia was resolved (with a nuke), neither the threads of Samara's daughters or Miranda's sister were resolved. The safety of Miranda's sister was always dependent on Cerberus, and their ability to betray Miranda was apparent as soon as ME2 allowed Miranda to betray them. The fate of Samara's daughters was likely unrelated to Samara herself.

ME2 never trod the ground of 'corrupting' any of Samara's daughters, nor is Samara the pivot of the Ardat Yakshi plot. Samara's missions were never about 'taking away what she had': Morinth's escape was only an element, and Samara cast aside the rest of her own volition. Samara's only 'peace' was as a broken, sorrowful vessel of her own description... which is the same as she is in ME3's spoiler's choice.

Your mistake is putting Samara more central than she ever was. The Reapers' design on her daughters works the same regardless if Samara is alive, dead, or anything other status.

[Asenza]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Agreed, Xil. Samara abandoned her family long before mankind escaped Earth's atmosphere.


@ Asenza

It's not like the genetic-uniqueness of the Ardat Yakshi hasn't been put forward before. Even Cerberus wanted to study Morinth (or her corpse) in ME2, and the Reaper interest in 'genetically unique specimens' has been long since established.

Plot threads left hanging are exactly the sort that warrant being used again. While Jack's plot with Pragia was resolved (with a nuke), neither the threads of Samara's daughters or Miranda's sister were resolved. The safety of Miranda's sister was always dependent on Cerberus, and their ability to betray Miranda was apparent as soon as ME2 allowed Miranda to betray them. The fate of Samara's daughters was likely unrelated to Samara herself.

ME2 never trod the ground of 'corrupting' any of Samara's daughters, nor is Samara the pivot of the Ardat Yakshi plot. Samara's missions were never about 'taking away what she had': Morinth's escape was only an element, and Samara cast aside the rest of her own volition. Samara's only 'peace' was as a broken, sorrowful vessel of her own description... which is the same as she is in ME3's spoiler's choice.

Your mistake is putting Samara more central than she ever was. The Reapers' design on her daughters works the same regardless if Samara is alive, dead, or anything other status.

*ME3 Possible Spoilers*

In ME2, Samara's mission was to kill Morinth, an unrepentant killer. Turning the last of her children into monsters, out of all the asari (and ardat-yakshi) on the homeworld- well.. there's not much I can say about that until ME3 gives us more info, I guess.

My issue is the similar, no, completely unchanged conflict. Rila and Falere.

How am I making Samara central to anything? I just thought that Samara was supposed to be a character, not an object that the writers can heap tragedy and torment on. That makes her one-note and flat. Tragedy and drama are an EZ pass to conflict and characterization. But just repeating the same issue from a previous game isn't the way to go about building on and adding depth to a previously established character, especially seeing as this is the last time we will see her.

[Dean_the_Young]

Asenza wrote...


*ME3 Possible Spoilers*

In ME2, Samara's mission was to kill Morinth, an unrepentant killer. Turning the last of her children into monsters, out of all the asari (and ardat-yakshi) on the homeworld- well.. there's not much I can say about that until ME3 gives us more info, I guess.

You're arguing against retredding ground here.

My issue is the similar, no, completely unchanged conflict. Rila and Falere.

Except you just pointed out the difference. One is a mission of Justice against an unrepentant killer long since separated. The other is, well, not.

How am I making Samara central to anything?

By pushing the idea of Samara having things done to her, when Samara is tangental to the AY plotline.

I just thought that Samara was supposed to be a character, not an object that the writers can heap tragedy and torment on.

That's what tragic characters are. Literary devices to heap tragedy on, until they fall or overcome.

And yes, pretty much all the characters of ME2 were one-note characters.

Tragedy and drama are an EZ pass to conflict and characterization. But just repeating the same issue from a previous game isn't the way to go about building on and adding depth to a previously established character, especially seeing as this is the last time we will see her.

The only similarity you've provided is that both made Samara miserable. Which, considering the reasons and dynamics for Samara's tragedy are completely different in the cases, doens't fit the 'repeating the same issue' dogma.

Killing Morinth made Samara... not happy, but at peace. Morinth's continued existence made Samara miserable, and that's why she abandoned family and basic morality for centuries of socially acceptable murder.

Killing her other daughter is an entirely different dynamic, for entirely different reasons, with an entirely different basis of Samara's approach to it.

[Asenza]

*possible spoilers*

@ Dean_the_Young,

It's not an entirely different dynamic because it's still using her children against her. ME2: Morinth was evil and Samara had to kill her to stop her from terrorizing the galaxy, and to atone. ME3: One/both of Samara's remaining daughters is/are corrupted and Samara has to kill her to stop her/them from...

That's the problem. We had tragedy in ME2, and now even more, almost identical tragedy in store in ME3. I'm not asking for a ribbons and rainbows ending for Samara (although peace instead of despair would be nice) but if they're determined to make her a tragic figure as opposed to a tragic character, I'd at least like it if they didn't follow the exact same formula...

[Dean_the_Young]

Asenza wrote...


*possible spoilers*

@ Dean_the_Young,

It's not an entirely different dynamic because it's still using her children against her.

Again, you're putting Samara as the central party other things revolve around. Her children are not, and never were, being used against her in particular by any party: Morinth would have been happy if Samara didn't choose to chase her, and her conflict with her other daughters is again a result of her own code.

A dynamic isn't 'children are involved.' It's how the devices are used. Samara wanted to kill Morinth, who was unrepentant and willing. Samara doesn't want to kill her other daughters, who are repentant and were unwilling.

ME2: Morinth was evil and Samara had to kill her to stop her from terrorizing the galaxy, and to atone. ME3: One/both of Samara's remaining daughters is/are corrupted and Samara has to kill her to stop her/them from...

If you selectively remove context and scrub away all other differences, everything will look the same.

You could just as well claim that Samara is just a recast Benezia/Liara dynamic. One is a powerful and old Asari who is convinced she is in the right. The other is the far younger daughter, caught up in circumstances beyond her control, who does not agree.

Bam. Reuse of formula.

That's the problem. We had tragedy in ME2, and now even more, almost identical tragedy in store in ME3. I'm not asking for a ribbons and rainbows ending for Samara (although peace instead of despair would be nice) but if they're determined to make her a tragic figure as opposed to a tragic character, I'd at least like it if they didn't follow the exact same formula...

They aren't. You're ignoring all differences to claim a point that doesn't exist.

[witchee2woman]

the code does not forbid romance. she says that when asked about it. but if u remember when samara tells your shephard that u have been a good friend to her and u feel the same. samara the says that if shephard ever is in need of her she says " i will come for you shephard ." thats what makes me think she will be in ME3.

[Dean_the_Young]

The producers have already confirmed that every surviving squadmate will appear in ME3.

[witchee2woman]

i didnt see that. thanks for letting me know. and where did u read that at?

[Dean_the_Young]

It was awhile ago, so I forget.

On the General Discussion forum is a 'Known Features' thread that would have it.

[Garden of Heaven]

witchee2woman wrote...

the code does not forbid romance. she says that when asked about it. but if u remember when samara tells your shephard that u have been a good friend to her and u feel the same. samara the says that if shephard ever is in need of her she says " i will come for you shephard ." thats what makes me think she will be in ME3.

Yes but that was canonically before the events of Arrival, but after Shepard kills hundreds of thousands of Batarians some of them innocent, I doubt that Samara will let that go as her code will compel her to kill Shepard for what he did even if they were for the right reasons, as her code is black and white and there is no room for compromise.

But I do hope that it does not go that far it would be terrible if Shepard has to fight and maybe even kill Samara at one point, as she was my favorite squad member in Mass Effect 2

Modifié par Garden of Heaven, 08 décembre 2011 - 11:03 .

[Flamewielder]

Nice to see the thread still active; thanks for holding the fort, Dean...

@ Garden of Heaven

Yes, the Code itself is black and white. Yet by the same token, the judgement of a Justicar is itself dependent on what evidence she has on hand. Out of a desire to protect the innocent(?) slavers and their captives in Arrival, Samara may have elected to preserve the relay in the hope of finding a better alternative (had she been in Shepard's position). She'd have doomed us all, by trying to keep to the high ground.

Yet, at the same time, Samara has had ample time to gauge the seriousness of the Reaper threat while galivanting across the Terminus systems with Shepard in ME2. Protecting the innocent apparently coming first before punishing the unjust, she may well agree with Shepard's decision to save untold trillions by condemning a few hundred thousands to death. This assumes of course that she believes Shepard's story about Reapers and doesn't consider him a delusional individual suffering from severe post-traumatic stress disorder... ("Ah yes, 'Reapers'...") After all, even the VS questioned Shepard's true motives, even after the events of ME1.

On a side-note, it occured to me that the blast may have also taken out a few of the fastest Reapers as a bonus, as they were mere minutes away from the relay when it exploded... yippee!

[Xilizhra]

Garden of Heaven wrote...

witchee2woman wrote...

the code does not forbid romance. she says that when asked about it. but if u remember when samara tells your shephard that u have been a good friend to her and u feel the same. samara the says that if shephard ever is in need of her she says " i will come for you shephard ." thats what makes me think she will be in ME3.

Yes but that was canonically before the events of Arrival, but after Shepard kills hundreds of thousands of Batarians some of them innocent, I doubt that Samara will let that go as her code will compel her to kill Shepard for what he did even if they were for the right reasons, as her code is black and white and there is no room for compromise.

But I do hope that it does not go that far it would be terrible if Shepard has to fight and maybe even kill Samara at one point, as she was my favorite squad member in Mass Effect 2

Samara's code would compel her to slaughter a whole police station for lawfully imprisoning her. I think she'll understand this.

[Garden of Heaven]

But what I could never understand is why she won't give in to Shepard's advances, if the code does not forbid romance why did she not accept?

Morinth was dead her job completed, she could've been with Shepard.

Modifié par Garden of Heaven, 08 décembre 2011 - 03:42 .

[HolyAvenger]

She does not want a relationship. She basically spells it out for you that she is content in her life as a justicar and does not want any complications or additions to it.

[Asenza]

HolyAvenger wrote...

She does not want a relationship. She basically spells it out for you that she is content in her life as a justicar and does not want any complications or additions to it.

No, she just says, "It cannot be."

Not: "I'm not attracted to you, I have no feelings for you, that part of my life is over," just, "It cannot be." That's a bit of an incomplete answer. We don't get the answer to the question WHY? especially considering the fact that she admits that she has feelings for Shepard.

This isn't like the Aveline thing from DA2- that was clearly one-sided, and more of a joke to both Hawke and Aveline than a serious attempt at a relationship (and she punched out a darkspawn for god's sake).

Then Samara gets II close to kissing Shepard, which directly contradicts the whole "It cannot be" bit because it so very nearly was.

@ Garden of Heaven,

I just took it as she needed more time to come to terms with having completed a goal that took up a significant portion of her life before anything else (I guess you can hear the desperate fangirl in me, ne?). Good news is that one of the Devs posted that the attempted romance is something that is flagged if imported to ME3, and that there will be... something. And if Kelly gets a full romance and not Samara... *my sister and I launch an assault on Bioware*.

Modifié par Asenza, 08 décembre 2011 - 05:34 .

[HolyAvenger]

Obviously this is a matter of interpretation, but that's what I took from that statement (and her other statements about how she had a family and that part of her life is over etc.) Its not a question of attraction, Samara clearly is attracted to ParagonShep, but a question of the fact that she does not want a relationship in her life imo.

[MACharlie1]

Why not? Easy - she is bound by her code. While it does not restrict her love life, she does not want to become attached to Shepard or anyone. Imagine Shepard does something awful and Samara has to kill him. She says it the first time we talk to her on the Normandy:

"Do I really want to know that he is a devoted father?"

And she knows it sucks. But she also knows that this is the life she has chosen and that she cannot walk away from it.

[Xilizhra]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Why not? Easy - she is bound by her code. While it does not restrict her love life, she does not want to become attached to Shepard or anyone. Imagine Shepard does something awful and Samara has to kill him. She says it the first time we talk to her on the Normandy:

"Do I really want to know that he is a devoted father?"

And she knows it sucks. But she also knows that this is the life she has chosen and that she cannot walk away from it.

This is ridiculous, quite frankly. It's always been her choice as to whether or not she can walk away from it.

[100k]

Xilizhra wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

Why not? Easy - she is bound by her code. While it does not restrict her love life, she does not want to become attached to Shepard or anyone. Imagine Shepard does something awful and Samara has to kill him. She says it the first time we talk to her on the Normandy:

"Do I really want to know that he is a devoted father?"

And she knows it sucks. But she also knows that this is the life she has chosen and that she cannot walk away from it.

This is ridiculous, quite frankly. It's always been her choice as to whether or not she can walk away from it.

She'd make a great SPECTRE.

Modifié par 100k, 09 décembre 2011 - 02:34 .

[Medhia Nox]

Is it so unfathomable that she simply wasn't interested in having a relationship?

We may all be nerds, but I gotta remind you folks - not everyone is afraid to be alone.