Ce sujet est fermé
CrutchCricket wrote...
Well, not exactly. It's not just about arcs. Characters, like people can constantly grow and evolve. Character arcs are related to a specific problem or event (Miranda-Ceberus, Mordin-genophage, Legion-geth etc.) But character development does not need to end with the conclusion of the arc. By that same token characters that don't have an active arc should not just be ignored as a result. An example: Samara concluded her arc in ME2. But her mission in ME3 provided more character development. One could argue that her presence in ME3, though limted was well spent. Now contrast Kasumi who in my honest opinion had no character development whatsoever, even in ME2, despite the completion of her arc. Indeed her ME3 appearance undoes implied development as she's still moping over the graybox even if you destroyed it.
I don't see how Samara even has a character arc in ME2 since she is the same person at the beginning of the game as the end. Indeed you could say that Citadel represents the most extreme character progression (or digression depending whether you see Samara's diminished reliance on the Code as good or bad). But I'm a bit confused: are you using Samara as an example of someone not being ignored? If so, then it seems a mission was enough. What characters in particular do you believe needed an expanded role in ME3 besides Miranda?
What important story or thematic roles do they have again? Everyone you've mentioned gets artificially promoted and ironically, that promotion should keep them off the squad, not secure their place on it. The only one with pre-existing importance to anything outside the squad is Tali, though it's merely by interchangable representation. She doesn't really provide a unique perspective like Legion does.
Yes, she does. She's the most prominent example of racism being transformed into tolerance.
Putting Tali aside, Garrus is a microcosm for the slogan of the game, which is victory through sacrifice. Besides Shepard, he is the character that has represented the struggle between idealistic views and hard, practical truth (Edit: I admit Vega serves this role as well). His ruthless calculus dialogue with Shepard is retrospectively a prelude to the ending choice. Additionally, his assignment to the task squad may have been token, but his status as of the war is not. He's one of the most important men in the hierarchy now.
I don't remember Ashley/Kaiden's Spectre status being token either. Am I missing a dialogue line, there?
As for their promotion keeping them off the squad, I've already addressed that.
My point isn't that the ME2 squad is more deserving. It's rather that the ME1 squad isn't more deserving and the only reason they're more prominent is favoritism. Any of the characters ME1 or ME2 could be made as crucial or as arbitrary to the story as you like. But a decision was clearly made to favor some over others.
Yes, clearly, and since you've admitted neither ME1 nor ME2 characters deserve it more, what's your issue besides personal preference?
And as for the rest, very few put in satisfactory appearances. So yes people want more. And they want more significance as well. You asked what fluff was. In light of our discussion on character development, let's add to that definition: something that add character development/growth. None of the extra content of Citadel did that hence it's fluff.
Satisfactory is subjective. All of the appearances for ME2 characters in ME3 were satisfactory for me except Miranda and Morinth. I've already pointed out one Citadel interaction that is NOT fluff (Samara) but others which add to the character instead of doing nothing include Jack, Miranda, and Tali.
Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 janvier 2014 - 07:15 .
Retour en haut
