131 réponses à ce sujet

[Eckswhyzee]

Does anyone else find it totally incomprehensible how people can "hate" a fictional character? I don't know if I'm just particularly mellow or something, but I can't think of anyone in the Mass Effect series or otherwise that I actively despise. I like some characters more than others, and some have annoying traits, but nothing really justifies sentiment like "OMG I'm SO gonna KILL squadmate X when I get the chance! I HATE THEM!!" This doesn't apply to the VS specifically, I'm talking about any character.

[DiebytheSword]

I don't understand Rabid hate for any of the characters in Shep's crew based on their beliefs. These are all decent people except maybe Jack, and she's literally just messed up from other people screwing her over.

[Graceyn]

JaerWolfe wrote...

I think what most VS fans are asking for is less justice and more character consistency or even character integrity. We want the characters we fell in love with in ME1 to have more than just a name in common with that same character in ME3. From what the spoilers have revealed it seems that the name and voice actor are the only things that will be the same leaving fans frustrated and very much confused.

There is a definite vibe that we are being punished because we didn't choose the 'correct' companion.

ME2 was very unsatisfactory for VS fans. We were the only ones left with nothing resolved. In fact, you can say that things very much devolved. When you add the Genesis comic to the mix, it seemed very much like a slap in the face...I speak particularly as a Kaidan fan who did not recognize the description in that comic as being anything like the character from ME1.
So comes ME3 and our hope for the resolution we have so far not only be denied, but mocked for wanting. The spoilers did nothing to allay these fears and much to make them worse.

As a Kaidan fan, I want character consistency. I want the same character who would not cut corners, who methodically thought things out in ME1 to have some glimmer of similarity in ME3. I don't want a 'good kid'.

I am aware that the primary writer for Kaidan's character is no longer attached to the ME franchise and I believe the same can be said of Ashley's character writer. I believe that the primary writer for Kaidan's character is the same one who wrote Jacob and Thane...and I see a very disturbing pattern in the resolution of those characters as well. As if because the original writers are no longer there to maintain the integrity of their creation, that integrity is lost.

We VS fans don't want a story that revolves solely around the VS. We want a story involving them where we are reminded of why we fell in love with them in the first place.

Very well said, I agree 100%

[solvill]

"TeenZombie wrote...

I've been meaning to drop this quote off in this thread for a while, so here is a quote that (hopefully) will put the "Ashley hates aliens" myth to rest. This is Chris L'Etoile, former Bioware writer, who wrote Ashley, and posts around the web as Stormwaltz, on the Penny Arcade forum Mass Effect thread:


I find it interesting that so many people have stereotyped her as "the racist." At a couple of points she blasts the Terra Firma party as being "bigots," and she openly admires the power of the Destiny Ascension in the Citadel approach cutscene - not quite what you'd expect from a xenophobe.

In her first conversation she spells out her thinking pretty explicitly (the bear and dog metaphor), and it's nothing more than a short paraphrase of the most memorable passage in Charles Pelligrino and George Zebrowski's novel "The Killing Star":


When we put our heads together and tried to list everything we could say with certainty about other civilizations, without having actually met them, all that we knew boiled down to three simple laws of alien behavior:

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.
If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.


2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.
No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.


3. THEY WILL ASSUME THAT THE FIRST TWO LAWS APPLY TO US.



And it's hard to dispute this. At the least, you could say the krogan live by these rules. It's certainly a more suspicious and pessimistic point of view than most of us are comfortable with. But is it racism, or realism?

Anyway. I fully expected some people write her off as a bigot. What surprises me is that no one's pointed out that her position does have some sense. Evidently, I did something very wrong here.

To answer a question from... I don't know, tens of pages ago, if you romance her and have persuade, you can convince her to be a bit less extreme in her opinions.

And there you have the man who wrote the character, telling us what she meant by the bear and dog comment, and her view on aliens.
Realism, not racism."



sorry copy and pasted this from Ashley tread so hopefully this will close the discusion about the racism

Modifié par solvill, 16 novembre 2011 - 10:47 .

[Estelindis]

I agree completely with JaerWolfe's post as well. Bioware created Kaidan and Ashley and gave them many wonderful and intriguing characteristics. They gave them some interesting flaws too, but, on the whole, they were written as good, brave, loyal people. Whatever Bioware does with them in ME3, let it be part of a believable character arc rather than unexplained character assassination. The former will be emotionally rewarding whereas the latter will produce nothing more than a cheap "gotcha!" moment. And, please, can they start to be written as separate people with distinct personalities again? It's in everyone's best interests, not just fans of the characters.

[onelifecrisis]

SAGEHONOR wrote...

Wrex is understandable.. But we still get a heart warming reception on Tuchanka and we are able to have a nice conversation with him about his plans for the Krogan. Liara, we get a DLC and even the chance to romance her again.. With the VS, we get a railroaded 2 minute cameo.... And I like how we can convince an indoctrinated spectre ( Saren ) to kill himself. We can gain someones loyalty ( Tali ) By lying and yelling at her admiralty board.. We can talk a squadmmate ( Garrus ) into not killing someone. But we cant convince the VS that we had good intentions working with Cerberus...

Yup, the ME2 writing sucked alright.

SAGEHONOR wrote...

I was told about what happens with them in ME3.. And it seems like we are once again gonna get put into "Forced Friendship" with characters like Tali, Garrus, Thane, etc.. While the VS is made to look...  you know.. Bad

Well at least BW are being consistent. Also, remember, this is a game of "choice!" and "big decisions!" and so on. No doubt when the VS "looks bad" as you put it, you will be able to make Shepard say one of two different lines in response! What more could you want?

[Iakus]

Xilizhra wrote...

In Ashley's case it seems to be about trust, she doesn't trust aliens (which she explains through the famously misinterpreted bear/dog analogy) She feels humanity needs to depend on themselves and not cling too much to aliens, since (she thinks) they.

The analogy was very badly written. I can hardly blame people for misinterpreting it.

the entire Destiny Ascension decision during the battle of the Citadel was the "bear and the dog" choice!

You had the 5th Fleet (the hunter), Sovereign and the geth (the bear) and the Ascension (the dog)

The 5th Fleet had to decide whether 5th Fleet should save the Ascension, knowing that the Fleet could die if they do so.  Or leave the Ascension to be mauled by "the bear".  Do you stand with the alien government, possibly dying alongside them?  Or leave them to hold off the bear?

Even my ultraparagon Shepard hesitated at this choice.

[syllogi]

Personally, I don't believe that Kaidan and Ashley are being written by people who care about or respect them. They don't have to love the characters, it would just be nice to know that the people who are now tasked with finishing their character arcs don't actively hate them and buy into the tired stereotypes thrown about on the forums whenever they are discussed.

If I want one dimensional, cartoonish characters, I can go watch soaps or wrestling. Bioware has shown in the past that they are capable of making characters worth caring about, but if the spoilers are anything like the finished product, it's very clear that the writers simply do not care enough about Kaidan and Ashley to take the time and effort required to make the scenarios I've read concerning them anywhere near believable.

If you've ever defended Ashley or Kaidan's point of view on Horizon, if you thought that there were shades of grey when it came to their lack of trust in ME2, if you gave the writers any credit at all for giving us a different perspective on Shepard's joining Cerberus, well, you were wrong. There is no middle ground, there is no depth, Shepard is always right, and the bad Virmire Survivor should be punished, severely. If you dare to think otherwise, and still like the VS after Horizon, you deserve to be punished too.

But we're supposed to be okay with this, because Ashley will spout poetry as her character is being ripped to shreds. Because that totally shows that they "get" her.

[Xilizhra]

I find it interesting that so many people have stereotyped her as "the racist." At a couple of points she blasts the Terra Firma party as being "bigots," and she openly admires the power of the Destiny Ascension in the Citadel approach cutscene - not quite what you'd expect from a xenophobe.

No, it's what I'd expect from someone who wasn't a completely one-sided moron. Though I suspect some of her dislike of Terra Firma (unfortunately not really seen unless you pick one dialogue option or bring her to Our Own Worst Enemy) is due to a certain amount of discomfort at her own (mild) bigotry. It's the same principle as to why people will happily attack racist characters in movies but would often be made uncomfortable by a white woman and black man in a relationship in one.

1. THEIR SURVIVAL WILL BE MORE IMPORTANT THAN OUR SURVIVAL.
If an alien species has to choose between them and us, they won't choose us. It is difficult to imagine a contrary case; species don't survive by being self-sacrificing.

Between one whole species and another whole species, yes. Exactly how a single choice could lead to the extinction of one whole species or another, especially with habitats distributed so widely, is utterly beyond me.

2. WIMPS DON'T BECOME TOP DOGS.
No species makes it to the top by being passive. The species in charge of any given planet will be highly intelligent, alert, aggressive, and ruthless when necessary.

Some of them will have been on the way up, certainly. Cultural mores may, however, change given time.

And it's hard to dispute this. At the least, you could say the krogan live by these rules. It's certainly a more suspicious and pessimistic point of view than most of us are comfortable with. But is it racism, or realism?

It incorporates some of both.

Anyway. I fully expected some people write her off as a bigot. What surprises me is that no one's pointed out that her position does have some sense. Evidently, I did something very wrong here.

Yes. You did. You did several things wrong. In fact, you came within a hairsbreadth of completely botching it.

To answer a question from... I don't know, tens of pages ago, if you romance her and have persuade, you can convince her to be a bit less extreme in her opinions.

Which requires you to be male, among other things. Weak.

And there you have the man who wrote the character, telling us what she meant by the bear and dog comment, and her view on aliens.
Realism, not racism.

Also the man who admitted he screwed up the character.

[Xilizhra]

The 5th Fleet had to decide whether 5th Fleet should save the Ascension, knowing that the Fleet could die if they do so. Or leave the Ascension to be mauled by "the bear". Do you stand with the alien government, possibly dying alongside them? Or leave them to hold off the bear?

Even my ultraparagon Shepard hesitated at this choice.

Mine did solely because of the slight possibility of Sovereign killing everyone. Given crew complements and how the Alliance and geth fleets would stack against each other, Alliance casualties couldn't possibly be as high as the casualties if the Destiny Ascension was destroyed. So it looks like I defied Ashley's prediction, at least on my own end... hm, maybe I should bring her to the final battle this time.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

In Ashley's case it seems to be about trust, she doesn't trust aliens (which she explains through the famously misinterpreted bear/dog analogy) She feels humanity needs to depend on themselves and not cling too much to aliens, since (she thinks) they.

The analogy was very badly written. I can hardly blame people for misinterpreting it.

the entire Destiny Ascension decision during the battle of the Citadel was the "bear and the dog" choice!

You had the 5th Fleet (the hunter), Sovereign and the geth (the bear) and the Ascension (the dog)

The 5th Fleet had to decide whether 5th Fleet should save the Ascension, knowing that the Fleet could die if they do so.  Or leave the Ascension to be mauled by "the bear".  Do you stand with the alien government, possibly dying alongside them?  Or leave them to hold off the bear?

Even my ultraparagon Shepard hesitated at this choice.

Because you might lose human ships with human lives on board, or because the entire galaxy and all races in it might be at stake?

Though at the time I didn't really think they were at stake, having just stopped Saren from diverting control of the station to Sovereign. But never mind that.

[Funkcase]

Eckswhyzee wrote...

Does anyone else find it totally incomprehensible how people can "hate" a fictional character? I don't know if I'm just particularly mellow or something, but I can't think of anyone in the Mass Effect series or otherwise that I actively despise. I like some characters more than others, and some have annoying traits, but nothing really justifies sentiment like "OMG I'm SO gonna KILL squadmate X when I get the chance! I HATE THEM!!" This doesn't apply to the VS specifically, I'm talking about any character.

This, even characters like Udina I really like as I find them interesting characters, bad, good or just grey they entertain me, no reason to hate them. I would only really hate a character if their fist came out of my tv and broke my nose.

[K_Tabris]

I've pretty much resigned to the fact that ME3 will contain more character assassination garbage for the V.S. They have turned Ashley and Kaidan from competent Alliance soldiers, fascinating characters with neat backstory into snivelling, mistrustful people.

Horizon gave me the impression that the writer of that scene misunderstood the characters entirely. At least Garrus and Liara are almost guaranteed to have awesome roles, being the favorite of the majority, so not all is lost.

I don't think the OP is a troll, s/he has some great points.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

Because you might lose human ships with human lives on board, or because the entire galaxy and all races in it might be at stake?

Though at the time I didn't really think they were at stake, having just stopped Saren from diverting control of the station to Sovereign. But never mind that.

A little of both.  By engaging the geth first, you weaken the fleet as a whole.  Then when you face Sovereign, you might not be strong enough to defeat him.  If it came to that, whether the Citadel relay opens or not, Hackett, Joker,  and everyone else in the fleet is dead.

Without 5th Fleet, the best case scenerio is Sovereign escapes to cause mischief later, and humanity as a whole is greatly weakened.  At worst, the cycle begins again, and everyone dies.

And that is why Ash's bear and dog analogy makes sense.  However much you may or may not care for the dog, sometimes you have to prioritize.

[Xilizhra]

And that is why Ash's bear and dog analogy makes sense. However much you may or may not care for the dog, sometimes you have to prioritize.

And this was not one of those times. At least not in the sense you meant.

[TheRealJayDee]

JaerWolfe wrote...

We VS fans don't want a story that revolves solely around the VS. We want a story involving them where we are reminded of why we fell in love with them in the first place.

Truth.

Had-to-say wrote...

Yes, Ashley is very flawed, most humans are. To me that makes her more real than these so called heroes. Life comes prepackaged with baggage.

More truth.

CptData wrote...
By the way, before ME3 I'll try a playthrough with Liara as LI. I never did one but I feel she deserves one. Same for Kaidan - he always gets virimired because I can't sacrifice Ashley

I'm just halfway through ME again, romancing Liara to have one import with that for ME3. It was really hard for me not to go with the Ashley romance.

[alperez]

NovinhaShepard wrote...

Horizon gave me the impression that the writer of that scene misunderstood the characters entirely.

Sorry to pick a single line from your post but i wanted to comment on that part specifically.

When the opening line from Ash is "Your in the presence of a God" then its clear that the writer not only misunderstood the character but never even took the time to look back at who the character was in the first place.

The biggest problem i see with how the VS seems to be portrayed is that instead of characters who's evolution is natural and thereby whatever actions they take can be understandable, they've become plot points for Bioware where the plot point is so important to how they want to tell the story that character progression becomes character assassination.

To me this is incredibly bad writing and instead of creating tension or forcing people to make a difficult choice where a misunderstanding of a complicated scenario could lead to the wrong one, it achieves the complete opposite effect.

Instead we get characters acting so completely against what the character was that when we're then presented with hard choices they become stupid and contrived with an almost glowing neon sign saying this is the choice your supposed to make stupid.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Because you might lose human ships with human lives on board, or because the entire galaxy and all races in it might be at stake?

Though at the time I didn't really think they were at stake, having just stopped Saren from diverting control of the station to Sovereign. But never mind that.

A little of both.  By engaging the geth first, you weaken the fleet as a whole.  Then when you face Sovereign, you might not be strong enough to defeat him.  If it came to that, whether the Citadel relay opens or not, Hackett, Joker,  and everyone else in the fleet is dead.

Without 5th Fleet, the best case scenerio is Sovereign escapes to cause mischief later, and humanity as a whole is greatly weakened.  At worst, the cycle begins again, and everyone dies.

And that is why Ash's bear and dog analogy makes sense.  However much you may or may not care for the dog, sometimes you have to prioritize.

Personally, I find most of the alien races in Mass Effect so humanoid that I have a hard time seeing race lines or looking at the aliens as "alien" in the extreme sense of the word. They imitate human emotions and human behavior so well that Ash's analogy didn't hold much power for me. My bias leans more toward who I'm familar with vs who I'm unfamiliar with. So, if I could either save Garrus or a random human guy, my emotions are pulling toward Garrus. If I could either save Joker or a random turian, my emotions are pulling toward Joker.

Modifié par Nightwriter, 17 novembre 2011 - 02:25 .

[Doofe2012]

It really sucks that I have to read fanfiction to experience a satisfying, emotionally sound story about Shepard and a VS. In all honesty, I want to see my canon MaleShep marry Ashley. But I really doubt I'll be seeing that in ME3. (note: I haven't read any spoiler leaks)

[Silent X]

Let me begin by saying that I like all of the ME1 sqadmates, and most of the ME2 ones (everyone but Zaeed--don't get me wrong, he's a great character, I just find him totally despicable). I romanced Liara, but I don't feel the need to bash other people for favoring other characters, nor do I really understand why some people do.

I quite like both Ashley and Kaidan. I thought they were both very good characters in Mass Effect 1, and whatever their flaws, they both strike me as essentially good people. I didn't agree with Ashley's views on aliens, and I'm not religious, but neither of those traits made me hate her character. I found that her wariness of aliens was understandable once I talked to her about her family history. Yes, it's a flaw, but it's realistic. People aren't perfect and our attitudes are often irrationally influenced by our experiences and upbringing. We had our disagreements, but I never doubted her loyalty or integrity as a soldier.

I found Kaidan to be pretty much a kindred spirit to my Shepard--level-headed, compassionate, inclined to reserve judgment on others. For those reasons, I related to him.

I would have saved them both on Virmire if I could have. In the end I saved Kaidan, but I felt awful about leaving Ashley behind.

While I definitely think the reunion on Horizon is rather flawed, I find the VS's reaction largely understandable. They thought Shepard was dead, and suddenly s/he's back, working with an organization known for its extreme views and its embracing of dubious methods to achieve its goals. I don't find it difficult to imagine that Kaidan or Ashley might, in this situation, wonder if the person they've just run into is really Shepard or if Shepard has somehow changed completely from the person they used to know (or thought they knew). I think what really makes their reaction here stick out like a sore thumb is that the reactions of pretty much everyone else Shepard used to know are surprisingly muted. Personally I feel more that most people are shockingly untroubled by Shepard's association with Cerberus than that Kaidan or Ashley is unreasonably disturbed by it.

I haven't read the leaked script and don't want to, so please don't spoil me about what may happen in ME3. While a significant amount of time has passed since ME1 and I could believe that Kaidan's and Ashley's characters might have changed in that time, I do hope that their character development will make sense and that they won't be completely removed from the characters we remember and that some of us, at least, have a fondness for.

[Iakus]

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Because you might lose human ships with human lives on board, or because the entire galaxy and all races in it might be at stake?

Though at the time I didn't really think they were at stake, having just stopped Saren from diverting control of the station to Sovereign. But never mind that.

A little of both.  By engaging the geth first, you weaken the fleet as a whole.  Then when you face Sovereign, you might not be strong enough to defeat him.  If it came to that, whether the Citadel relay opens or not, Hackett, Joker,  and everyone else in the fleet is dead.

Without 5th Fleet, the best case scenerio is Sovereign escapes to cause mischief later, and humanity as a whole is greatly weakened.  At worst, the cycle begins again, and everyone dies.

And that is why Ash's bear and dog analogy makes sense.  However much you may or may not care for the dog, sometimes you have to prioritize.

Personally, I find most of the alien races in Mass Effect so humanoid that I have a hard time seeing race lines or looking at the aliens as "alien" in the extreme sense of the word. They imitate human emotions and human behavior so well that Ash's analogy didn't hold much power for me. My bias leans more toward who I'm familar with vs who I'm unfamiliar with. So, if I could either save Garrus or a random human guy, my emotions are pulling toward Garrus. If I could either save Joker or a random turian, my emotions are pulling toward Joker.

Tus why an a counter to the "Ash is racist" arguement that I hold to is "Ash is a nationalist"  However human the other races seem to be, they are still beholden to foreign governments.  And as such have agendas and motives not necessailly in line with the Alliance.  As such, humans (the noncorporate, nonpolitician types at least) are those on "her side" and thus take priority in saving.   With certain exceptions for those who have proven themselves, of course.  

[1136342t54_]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Because you might lose human ships with human lives on board, or because the entire galaxy and all races in it might be at stake?

Though at the time I didn't really think they were at stake, having just stopped Saren from diverting control of the station to Sovereign. But never mind that.

A little of both.  By engaging the geth first, you weaken the fleet as a whole.  Then when you face Sovereign, you might not be strong enough to defeat him.  If it came to that, whether the Citadel relay opens or not, Hackett, Joker,  and everyone else in the fleet is dead.

Without 5th Fleet, the best case scenerio is Sovereign escapes to cause mischief later, and humanity as a whole is greatly weakened.  At worst, the cycle begins again, and everyone dies.

And that is why Ash's bear and dog analogy makes sense.  However much you may or may not care for the dog, sometimes you have to prioritize.

Personally, I find most of the alien races in Mass Effect so humanoid that I have a hard time seeing race lines or looking at the aliens as "alien" in the extreme sense of the word. They imitate human emotions and human behavior so well that Ash's analogy didn't hold much power for me. My bias leans more toward who I'm familar with vs who I'm unfamiliar with. So, if I could either save Garrus or a random human guy, my emotions are pulling toward Garrus. If I could either save Joker or a random turian, my emotions are pulling toward Joker.

Tus why an a counter to the "Ash is racist" arguement that I hold to is "Ash is a nationalist"  However human the other races seem to be, they are still beholden to foreign governments.  And as such have agendas and motives not necessailly in line with the Alliance.  As such, humans (the noncorporate, nonpolitician types at least) are those on "her side" and thus take priority in saving.   With certain exceptions for those who have proven themselves, of course.  

The main problem is people don't think of it that way even though it was rather obvious. Ashley's example of the bear and dog is quite apt (although) even in real life. I like Canada but I'm a American and hold more loyalty to this country than Canada. The same goes for humanity even more since naturally I look to preserve my own species over others. Hell I bet originally Terra Firma wasn't that bad.

I bet they wanted to preserve Earth culture, science, history and keep a strong military. Those are reasonable goals since the Asari usually uses their own culture to eclipse other societies and gain more influence over them. Turians want to remain the top dogs military wise and the Salarians want to keep leading in the science field. Ashley's political feelings on the nature of humanity's place in the galaxy is one of the reasons why she is one of my favorite game characters.

[Nightwriter]

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

iakus wrote...

Nightwriter wrote...

Because you might lose human ships with human lives on board, or because the entire galaxy and all races in it might be at stake?

Though at the time I didn't really think they were at stake, having just stopped Saren from diverting control of the station to Sovereign. But never mind that.

A little of both.  By engaging the geth first, you weaken the fleet as a whole.  Then when you face Sovereign, you might not be strong enough to defeat him.  If it came to that, whether the Citadel relay opens or not, Hackett, Joker,  and everyone else in the fleet is dead.

Without 5th Fleet, the best case scenerio is Sovereign escapes to cause mischief later, and humanity as a whole is greatly weakened.  At worst, the cycle begins again, and everyone dies.

And that is why Ash's bear and dog analogy makes sense.  However much you may or may not care for the dog, sometimes you have to prioritize.

Personally, I find most of the alien races in Mass Effect so humanoid that I have a hard time seeing race lines or looking at the aliens as "alien" in the extreme sense of the word. They imitate human emotions and human behavior so well that Ash's analogy didn't hold much power for me. My bias leans more toward who I'm familar with vs who I'm unfamiliar with. So, if I could either save Garrus or a random human guy, my emotions are pulling toward Garrus. If I could either save Joker or a random turian, my emotions are pulling toward Joker.

Tus why an a counter to the "Ash is racist" arguement that I hold to is "Ash is a nationalist"  However human the other races seem to be, they are still beholden to foreign governments.  And as such have agendas and motives not necessailly in line with the Alliance.  As such, humans (the noncorporate, nonpolitician types at least) are those on "her side" and thus take priority in saving.   With certain exceptions for those who have proven themselves, of course.  

That's a valid argument. But I feel Ash draws race lines where she should be drawing government lines. My issue is with the supposed statement, "Assume every alien is a nationalist because of race." That's still seeing species before the individual, yes? I'm not saying it's unreasonable -- humanity is the new kid in a playground full of strange playmates -- but I do think it means making unfair assumptions and sewing unnecessary distrust at a crucial inter-species social stage.