3 réponses à ce sujet

[Rulid]

I've been in and out of these forums since ME1, but this is probably the first time I'm OPing.
Please feel free to redirect me elsewhere if it's been discussed.

A particular nagging thought has been itching it's way around my skullbox for a couple of days since I've posted on a Garrus-centric thread.

My quib is:
Garrus gets overly influence by the player's choice that I can't seem to get a grip on his character. And a lot of characters seem to be going in the same direction.

To specify:
While well written characters seem to have an engaging and cohesive plot line of his/her own,  because of the act of influence by the PC, some characters fail to make a cohesive profile because of too many outcomes.
Garrus in particular seems to have a haphazard narrative.

First he's an eager Evil Must Pay / Rules Get in the Way person.
By renegade route I can influence him to become more so.
By paragon route I can influence him to be accepting of the rules.

Then in ME2 he's become reset to the uber-renegade course.
I can Again influence him to be even more renegade or to turn back to the rules.

If this happens for a third time in ME3 I swear I'll have him get an IQ test from Dr Chakwas.

The problem is... Who Is Garrus?

Is he an ever enthusiastic, hunger for justice sort of person? Relentless despite my ever constant remedies to remiss him to a more mannered state? Despite all that roller coaster change of what he views justice, we're not given much of what or why he so ever thirst for the proper dispension of it.
His anecdote about the escaped organ thief was tossed out as a description of one of his pursuits for such justice. His time in between ME1 and 2 as Archangel was also just a description of his constant pursuit of Punisher like activities. We are given nothing besides his rather brief soundbite of his times in "C-sec".

Due to such tersity of his past narrative, and over emphasis on incorporating the influence of the PC's every word, Garrus merely becomes a sounding board for the PC's views.
It's nice to see Garrus take in my words in every game, despite the fact he will eventually revert. However, this happens in every game.

The reason behind this Garrus-reloaded scenario is his position as a recurring squad member.
The other recurring sqadmate, Tali, didn't have much of a personal storyline in ME1. Giving the data from stopping the Geth invasion for her pilgrimage was not a moral or personal act. Hence, her story line is fresh and interesting in ME2. Liara's story in ME1 was huge. And her role in ME2 was absolutely different from ME1. The other characters were not as fleshed out in ME2 to be compared to ME1.

The problem is that unless the writers revamp each character to have a significantly different plot point for their persona for ME3, they'll end up like Garrus.
Most notable concerns are characters like

Jack and her Angst
Grunt and his immaturity
Samara and her daughter... or Morinth and her mother
Kasumi and her stolen memory
Zaeed and his Grudge
Thane dying... still.
Jacob ... and... what... his dad?
Garrus and Justice.... again?

Where will these characters go from there?
This is in stark contrast to

Tali and Legion and the Geth
Miranda the Virmire Survivor and Cerberus
Wrex and Mordin and the Genophage (Grunt himself expressed no particular thoughts on the Genophage)

Will it help to suddenly have Jack suddenly becoming proccupied with... her baldness?
Will Jacob's issue feel as unique along side Miranda? or his other "Nice guy Clones" such as Alenko, Carth Onasi, and possibly James the Sniper.

In conclusion:
I feel these characters have reached the end of their narrative without feeling akward by introducing some never before touched upon "Issue" (and that would be lame, especially considering it's the end of the trilogy)

Modifié par Rulid, 21 juin 2011 - 12:09 .

[mineralica]

I think all problems of Garrus started from the moment when it was decided to not make two separate ME2 Garruses from para/ren motivated ME1 Garrus. So there was the only way - choose one path and write a story, and since default Shepard is Renegade (renegadish idiot, if that matters), the choice was obvious. For Renegades, ME2 Garrus is straight continuation of ME1 Garrus and it's easy to "grip a character" - Paragon's influence is just forgotten.
So every time when Shepard influence people to be more kind/evil, one choice is picked as "canon" and other is forgotten. Considering Jack is described as "mature", I think this is the case when paragon approach - attempts to help her - will be canon and renegade approach - using her - will be irrelevant. Let's hope it will be more subtle this time.

[alperez]

There is a big problem with character consitency in mass effect, Garrus as you point out suffers from it big time, we also have the conrad bug which again shows this up.

A part of me actually thinks this is the real reason why the rest of the me1 crew was reduced in role for me2, rather than the reason we got. With Liara we got a plotline to explain why she was out of character (although people still complained) with the VS we got horizon which was too short to count.

Tali gets away with it because you don't really influence her character in the same way.

Since it looks as if a lot if not all of the me2 specific crew is getting a reduced role i wonder if again they're hedging their bets, thinking less means less work so we'll go that route.

Even the choice of Garrus and Tali for possible permanent squadmembers would suggest this might be the case since you don't really influence either that much (its more plotline than character progression).