313 réponses à ce sujet

[Galbrant]

wright1978 wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

You can say this if the game and main character directly explains what emotions they are feeling. It soundsmore that you assuming that the game is forcing what emotion is felt.

Roloplaing wise, as a person who is tryingto savethe galexy and the last peace need for that was taken from under you, why wouldn't yoube upset?
It's just like the locker scene when the normady was locked down in ME1.

Shepard is a vessel for the player. Making them feel something the player doesn't (especially when it contradicts Shepard's established general personality) is a problem.

Characterizing Shepard (beyond the most basic, general archetypes) was one of the bigger mistakes of ME3, because it harms role playing. You know, the RP in RPG.

Yep this

Cased Closed. 

[Xamufam]

I agree with o ventus

[1337b0r0m1r]

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard is a vessel for the player. Making them feel something the player doesn't (especially when it contradicts Shepard's established general personality) is a problem.

Characterizing Shepard (beyond the most basic, general archetypes) was one of the bigger mistakes of ME3, because it harms role playing. You know, the RP in RPG.

Don't confuse your personal preferences with objective truths.

Some players prefer to play an empty vessel for the reasons you stated. Other players prefer the player character to have some personality of its own, even at the cost of reduced agency.  Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages - what works better just depends on the game you create, the story you want to tell. But you can't just claim that one is intrinsically better than the other.

Mass Effect certainly didn't hit the perfect spot, but neither I would I want to play an Elder-Scrolls-esque empty shell preferable. Personally, I found some more definition would have actually benefitted Mass Effect. Might have made for a bit less of Shepard's often bland one-liners.

Modifié par 1337b0r0m1r, 14 février 2013 - 11:04 .

[Indy_S]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard is a vessel for the player. Making them feel something the player doesn't (especially when it contradicts Shepard's established general personality) is a problem.

Characterizing Shepard (beyond the most basic, general archetypes) was one of the bigger mistakes of ME3, because it harms role playing. You know, the RP in RPG.

Don't confuse your personal preferences with objective truths.

Some players prefer to play an empty vessel for the reasons you stated. Other players prefer the player character to have some personality of its own, even at the cost of reduced agency.  Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages - what works better just depends on the game you create, the story you want to tell. But you can't just claim that one is intrinsically better than the other.

Mass Effect certainly didn't hit the perfect spot, but neither I would I want to play an Elder-Scrolls-esque empty shell preferable.

What we have here is an empty shell for two games followed up by a character in the third. That is certainly the wrong way to go about it, considering it's supposed to be the same character.

[1337b0r0m1r]

Indy_S wrote...

What we have here is an empty shell for two games followed up by a character in the third. That is certainly the wrong way to go about it, considering it's supposed to be the same character.

I didn't play ME 1 much because I found the gameplay too unappealing, so I can't say much about that, but I didn't find the ME2 Shepard emptier than the one of ME3... relative to the story backdrop. 

[Indy_S]

That's fair. However for players that are more accustomed to the empty shell, it's not too difficult to see why it's so maligned.

[TheRealJayDee]

crimzontearz wrote...

they tried so hard it felt forced


and then starbrat happened and the whole choose your suicide flavor after watching your mentor die and blah blah blah

Fawx9 wrote...

I always thought they were going for darkest before the dawn type thing

Then there was the ending and it had no dawn.

So ya.

Yup.

[Jonata]

To answer directly to OP, I think that the incredibly uplifting tones of Tuchanka and (at least in the Geth/Quarian peace version) Rannoch pretty much balance the sad tone of the overall Galaxy At War situation.

There are also pretty of small details and jokes that keeps you entertained and in the "ME mood", even if this IS a darker chapter.

[wright1978]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard is a vessel for the player. Making them feel something the player doesn't (especially when it contradicts Shepard's established general personality) is a problem.

Characterizing Shepard (beyond the most basic, general archetypes) was one of the bigger mistakes of ME3, because it harms role playing. You know, the RP in RPG.

Don't confuse your personal preferences with objective truths.

Some players prefer to play an empty vessel for the reasons you stated. Other players prefer the player character to have some personality of its own, even at the cost of reduced agency.  Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages - what works better just depends on the game you create, the story you want to tell. But you can't just claim that one is intrinsically better than the other.

Mass Effect certainly didn't hit the perfect spot, but neither I would I want to play an Elder-Scrolls-esque empty shell preferable. Personally, I found some more definition would have actually benefitted Mass Effect. Might have made for a bit less of Shepard's often bland one-liners.

I personally found ME1-2 did hit a pretty good spot, and i agree i prefer that model to the elder scrolls one. ME3 is where they removed agency from players that had been previously present.

[ZLurps]

dreman9999 wrote...

DeinonSlayer wrote...

As I recall, the locker scene didn't put words in Shepard's mouth. We were still pretty much free to feel however we wanted at that scene.

I think my Shepard was contemplating how he'd go about introducing Udina to his combat knife right about then...

But it did directly difine an emotion for the player. It matter not that it did not put word in his mouth, it still illustraded an emotion with out player input. Shepard seen angrully slamming his/her locker does not open up to other emotions.

There is also factor that animation in ME1 didn't allow BW to portray strong emotions, so they used camera angle, other body language and blank stare instead of doing facial animations.

But yeah, result was IMO very good, it manages to capture certain mood, but leaves it up to player to figure what Shep is really going through in his head. Sequence is also short. Narritives dynamic also work very well in leading to this scene.

What happens after Thessia is different kind of beast, there are so many problems with it. The biggest thing isn't IMO even the forced emotions per se, but that they come right after we are first taken out from our immersion with irritating Kai Leng sequence.

If we think of dynamic in narrative, just Thessia and aftermath, Thessia is actually pretty good, even though tad short. We see actual Reaper war going on first time since Palaven there, Asari soldiers fighting and sacrifacing ads to atmosphere of bleak war a lot and fights can be pretty good too, especially scene where we get to fight two Harvesters.

After that we get to adventure part, we solve puzzle on temple and learn about the world in process, there is certain sense of discovery there and pacing is very good, allowing us to slow down for such thing for a moment.

Then, Kai Leng arrives and everything that made Thessia work is broken and right after we have dealth with one of the most immersion breaking "video gamey" boss fights in the series we are supposed to be back in universe and invested to emotions even we are actually still wondering WTF were designers thinking with Kai Leng sequence.

It doesn't help that emotions on Shep are forced as subtly as sledgehammer, buy if lead up were been something that actually worked, it might been less irritating.


EDIT:
There were several threads about how "Shepard should feel heavy load" on forums before ME3 came out. I thought it was stupid back then and now I see the results, I must say that it's all very good example how not every idea that comes from the fans is a good one.

Modifié par ZLurps, 14 février 2013 - 11:53 .

[Postman778]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard is a vessel for the player. Making them feel something the player doesn't (especially when it contradicts Shepard's established general personality) is a problem.

Characterizing Shepard (beyond the most basic, general archetypes) was one of the bigger mistakes of ME3, because it harms role playing. You know, the RP in RPG.

Don't confuse your personal preferences with objective truths.

Some players prefer to play an empty vessel for the reasons you stated. Other players prefer the player character to have some personality of its own, even at the cost of reduced agency.  Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages - what works better just depends on the game you create, the story you want to tell. But you can't just claim that one is intrinsically better than the other.

Mass Effect certainly didn't hit the perfect spot, but neither I would I want to play an Elder-Scrolls-esque empty shell preferable. Personally, I found some more definition would have actually benefitted Mass Effect. Might have made for a bit less of Shepard's often bland one-liners.

While I was able to build a charakter in ME1 and 2 through my actions and the things I said, I got a character in ME3 that I have to play.

Order from BW:
-you have nightmares of that child that was killed by Reaper

Those nightmares are an eyewash, because my alter ego Shepard won´ t have any nightmares. Not because my Shepard is merciless or lacks feelings and humanity, but because he had seen so much more before (e.g. colonists beeing melted to goo), he has gone through so many difficult situations, that a dead child might be sad for the moment, but it won´ t haunt my Shepard the rest of his life.

But I am forced to be haunted...

That is no longer the character I shaped throughout ME1 and 2 before, but someone else.

The real sad moments, that was pretty good written where the death of Mordin. That was something hearttouching. He was haunted by the genophage, that he might be co-responsible for the extinction of the krogans. The character was developed from ME2 to ME3 and it was good (in my mind). But the development of Shepard is not comprehensible, because I have the feeling I am watching someone else. A reason might be the lack of possible answers during conversations, and the overall sad tone of a lot of answers I have to give...

But, that is just my point of view.

[Indy_S]

You're not alone in that point of view, as this thread shows.

ZLurps wrote...
There were several threads about how "Shepard should feel heave load" on forums before ME3 came out. I thought it was stupid back then and now I see the results, I must say that it's all very good example how not every idea that comes from the fans is a good one.

It either should have been like that since ME1 or it shouldn't have been at all. It's just too big of a difference to implement in a sequel for the same character.

Modifié par Indy_S, 14 février 2013 - 11:54 .

[dreman9999]

Postman778 wrote...

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard is a vessel for the player. Making them feel something the player doesn't (especially when it contradicts Shepard's established general personality) is a problem.

Characterizing Shepard (beyond the most basic, general archetypes) was one of the bigger mistakes of ME3, because it harms role playing. You know, the RP in RPG.

Don't confuse your personal preferences with objective truths.

Some players prefer to play an empty vessel for the reasons you stated. Other players prefer the player character to have some personality of its own, even at the cost of reduced agency.  Both approaches have their own advantages and disadvantages - what works better just depends on the game you create, the story you want to tell. But you can't just claim that one is intrinsically better than the other.

Mass Effect certainly didn't hit the perfect spot, but neither I would I want to play an Elder-Scrolls-esque empty shell preferable. Personally, I found some more definition would have actually benefitted Mass Effect. Might have made for a bit less of Shepard's often bland one-liners.

While I was able to build a charakter in ME1 and 2 through my actions and the things I said, I got a character in ME3 that I have to play.

Order from BW:
-you have nightmares of that child that was killed by Reaper

Those nightmares are an eyewash, because my alter ego Shepard won´ t have any nightmares. Not because my Shepard is merciless or lacks feelings and humanity, but because he had seen so much more before (e.g. colonists beeing melted to goo), he has gone through so many difficult situations, that a dead child might be sad for the moment, but it won´ t haunt my Shepard the rest of his life.

But I am forced to be haunted...

That is no longer the character I shaped throughout ME1 and 2 before, but someone else.

The real sad moments, that was pretty good written where the death of Mordin. That was something hearttouching. He was haunted by the genophage, that he might be co-responsible for the extinction of the krogans. The character was developed from ME2 to ME3 and it was good (in my mind). But the development of Shepard is not comprehensible, because I have the feeling I am watching someone else. A reason might be the lack of possible answers during conversations, and the overall sad tone of a lot of answers I have to give...

But, that is just my point of view.

Seriously, in a psycological level you can't say your Shepard won't have those dreams. Realisticly you can control what you dream about, just how you react to them.

[Indy_S]

dreman9999 wrote...
Seriously, in a psycological level you can't say your Shepard won't have those dreams. Realisticly you can control what you dream about, just how you react to them.

Then it's up to the narrative to reinforce that to the player. The fact that Shepard is feeling bad while I feel disinterested is a great reason to dislike these scenes. If they ruin your immersion this much, they're counter-productive. The writer of the dreams wrote cheques the game couldn't cash.

[o Ventus]

I honestly fail to see why people insist on saying "in real life, you would/wouldn't...!"

I'll say it again. Shepard is a vessel for the player. Shepard feeling something totally different from the player means something is amiss.

Shepard's personality is such a way that it can be sculpted and molded by the player. The existence of backgrounds and service history confirms this. The fact that aside from those 2 things, nothing is known about Shepard's backstory also confirms this.

Automatically making Shepard feel emotion can be acceptable where it makes sense, both within lore and gameplay. Be it Paragon or Renegade, it makes sense that Shepard would feel something after a failure (note I didn't specify an emotion). That is, so long as the failure actually had something to do on Shepard's part, and not stupid cutscene BS. The scene with Joker is another example of forced emotion being bad, because Shepard's reaction can completely conflict with his or her personality.

[kyles3]

o Ventus wrote...

Shepard is a vessel for the player.

Not necessarily. I never think of any character I play in a game as being in any way mine or having a path that's determined by how I play. I just don't expect that much out of a game, even an RPG that gives you "choices." Bottom line is that the game has writers and they're going to tell the story they want to tell. And I like it that way.

I play to enjoy the gameplay, the characters, the universe, and the plot. Not to write my own story. For this reason I find Shepard mostly boring in the first two games, and a great and worthwhile protagonist in the third. Changing the approach in the third game does a disservice to those who appreciated the previous' games approach and expected consistency, but for me it made it a better game.

Modifié par kyles3, 14 février 2013 - 12:20 .

[1337b0r0m1r]

o Ventus wrote...

I'll say it again. Shepard is a vessel for the player. 

And I'll say it again: That's your point of view of how it should be - but not everyone's. And apparently, it wasn't Bioware's point of view either, as they obiously attempted to strike a middle path here.

[Bob Garbage]

ME3 Shepard is not a vessel for the player, that's actually one of the biggest complaints about the game.

Bioware did pull the "it's sad time" and "lolz!" cards a bit too much in ME3. There are some lines of dialogue where I just sit here thinking.....WHY WOULD ANYONE ALLOW THAT IN THEIR GAME?! One of the worst things being when two NPCs are greeting each other, and say almost the exact same thing to each other.

"GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE IN ONE PIECE LIARA"
"GLAD TO SEE YOU'RE IN ONE PIECE GARRUS"

****

[wright1978]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I'll say it again. Shepard is a vessel for the player. 

And I'll say it again: That's your point of view of how it should be - but not everyone's. And apparently, it wasn't Bioware's point of view either, as they obiously attempted to strike a middle path here.

Describing ME3's approach as the middle ground is wrong. There's nothing middle ground about the scale of the removal of player agency that occurred in ME3.

[spirosz]

dreman9999 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Dreman, you're missing the point that not every Shepard would flip their upset switch just because of Thessia.

I never said that every Shepard needs to be upset about thef all of Thessia. I said at the very least they would be upset over loosing the one final peice need to defeat the reapers, which slip through Shepards hands in that mission.

"At very least they would be upset" - that is implying every Shepard would be upset.  

No.

[1337b0r0m1r]

wright1978 wrote...

1337b0r0m1r wrote...

o Ventus wrote...

I'll say it again. Shepard is a vessel for the player. 

And I'll say it again: That's your point of view of how it should be - but not everyone's. And apparently, it wasn't Bioware's point of view either, as they obiously attempted to strike a middle path here.

Describing ME3's approach as the middle ground is wrong. There's nothing middle ground about the scale of the removal of player agency that occurred in ME3.

I'm not referring to changes, I'm referring to the level. And Shepard is clearly neither an empty hull like your typical Bethesda or MMO hero, nor a relatively well-defined character like Geralt of Rivia or the JRPG-crowd.

But even if I was talking about changes, well, I don't see much change from ME2 to ME3. If Shepard has more intrinsic personality in the latter, than it's just because he has are more interesting, engaging story to experience... but that's just my opinion.

spirosz wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

Dreman, you're missing the point that not every Shepard would flip their upset switch just because of Thessia.

I never said that every Shepard needs to be upset about thef all of Thessia. I said at the very least they would be upset over loosing the one final peice need to defeat the reapers, which slip through Shepards hands in that mission.

"At very least they would be upset" - that is implying every Shepard would be upset.  

No.

Jesus... so not every Shepard should be upset about the fall of Thessia? Why should you care about Earth, then? Or about the fate of the Galaxy, for that matter? If your Shepard doesn't care about that stuff, why would he fight at all? And by extension, why do you play at all? You could have "experienced pleasue you cannot even imagine" with Morinth and then just let it be.

Mass Effect just has a story, a certain kind of story, and if you want to play this story, you have to accept some assumptions. Like that you actually care.

Modifié par 1337b0r0m1r, 14 février 2013 - 01:57 .

[spirosz]

1337b0r0m1r wrote...



Jesus... so not every Shepard should be upset about the fall of Thessia? Why should you care about Earth, then? Or about the fate of the Galaxy, for that matter? If your Shepard doesn't care about that stuff, why would he fight at all? And by extension, why do you play at all? You could have "experienced pleasue you cannot even imagine" with Morinth and then just let it be.

Mass Effect just has a story, a certain kind of story, and if you want to play this story, you have to accept some assumptions. Like that you actually care.

Yes, why should it matter to you if my Shepard wouldn't be upset about Thessia?  I do care, but if you RP a certain Shepard, that say, isn't too fond of Asari or aliens in general, I'm assuming he/she would brush it off.

Why do I even play at all...

I'm sorry, I didn't know I was playing your game.

Modifié par spirosz, 14 février 2013 - 02:00 .

[Postman778]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]Seriously, in a psycological level you can't say your Shepard won't have those dreams. Realisticly you can control what you dream about, just how you react to them.
[/quote]

There is Rehearsal-Model which will have an impact on your ability to have an influence on your dreams. There is a psychologist onboard who will help you with nightmares .

Furthermore, BW announced that I will craft my own Mass Effect 3. Where and how do I craft it, when I am forced towards actions or dreams I cannot connect to my Shepard.

[spirosz]

Postman778 wrote...

I cannot connect to my Shepard.

And this a huge issue for me as well.  

[Mathias]

I definitely think they tried too hard. There are ways to be subtle about this sort of thing, and this was in no way to be considered subtle. The dream sequences were basically Bioware spray painting on a big piece of plywood, and holding it up which reads

"This is deep and sad!"

The only part in the game that hit me emotionally was Mordin's sacrifice and the peace between the Quarians and the Geth. Those two things were executed very well. So there is good writing to be had in this game. It was just few and far between, unlike the past 2 games.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 14 février 2013 - 02:13 .