I think the problem with TV tropes is the misconception many people have that tropes are always a bad thing. To be fair that isn't the websites fault, as the site itself doesn't make that claim.
Also I think it would be impossible for any writer to avoid characters or scenarios in their stories that would qualify for one or more entries on TV Tropes. We've been telling stories for tens of thousands of years. Nothing is original anymore.
Therein lies the problem.
Mary Sue is, by definition, flawless.
There really isn't a standardized definition of what is and what isn't a mary-sue. There are general archetypes and tropes that each will have, but you'd be hard pressed to actually narrow down what is and what isn't flawless, for example. A Mary-sue type character might have a flaw for example, but the flaw is treated with sympathy and overcome with the help of her friends: Sometimes, it's even used to show that said flaw is actually a virtue the character grows to appreciate, making her even more 'perfect'.
Or really Best Thing Ever.
Much entertainment and procrastination was achieved from reading that site.
Still can't bring myself to read the ME entry though.
If you're talking about Mary-sue, Liara's not in there. Mainly because David went in there and took her out. Also, if there's any Mass Effect edits, expect David to have edited or altered or even written them in some way.
This is where I start to question the importance of whether or not the Mary Sue trope precisely applies to Liara. The interesting questions, it seems to me, are whether or not the character is well-written on her own terms, and whether or not her role as Shepard's designated confidante can be justified in what is ostensibly a role-playing game. My inclination is to think that the answer to both questions is "not really."
In response to the first question, I find her a little to "fainty" in ME1, and I think the character change from ME1 to ME2 is far to dramatic to be based solely on events that occur entirely off-screen and with little to no foreshadowing from the earlier game. In response to the second, I just think the PC should have a bit more control over how he/she gets to define his/her relationships with the other characters.
EDIT: Changed some formatting
David's answer: She is not 'fainty' in ME1. Any heroic individual will be tired after their meaningful conflict, especially when the hero is there to comfort them and train them from being a shy and meek civilian specialist into one of the best soldiers in the galaxy in a matter of weeks. And the second part is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with having mandatory characters that the player can't define their relationships with. There is nothing wrong with Liara being 'forced' to be Shepard's best friend. Without meaningful characters, you wouldn't have a good story, and BioWare knows how to make a better story than any fans do. All these people shill and complain about Liara being a 'bad' character because she's good and heroic and smart and beautiful. It's weak of course. They can't handle the fact that they'll never be anything, with no power. All these 'renegade' players. How childish.
If you can't tell, I'm pretty bored. So I decided to imitated David.
So why is there no topic like this for Garrus?
So why is there no topic like this for Garrus?
Should I deconstruct this statement pointing out the logical fallacy behind it?
Or should I go ahead and say why Garrus doesn't get this treatment?
Go ahead, to both.
The main fallacy behind it is that you're asking a loaded question about why Liara gets this treatment or topic, yet Garrus doesn't. I'm going to make an assumption (and bite myself in the ass) that you don't think it's fair? It may well not be, but it not being fair that people argue about Liara doesn't make any argument against her any less incorrect. You have to argue with those points on their own to prove them false, not just ask 'why aren't people getting upset over Garrus then?'
Garrus doesn't generally get the treatment because he isn't anywhere near as pervasive or intrusive in the series as Liara is. For example, you don't have to recruit Garrus in ME1. In ME2, he can die. He's not a major plot essential character that cannot be killed or had their influence on the PC diminished. He isn't constantly intruding in private areas or acting more intimate with Shepard than his love interest. He's not the sole focus of several external stories, he's not shoehorned into media, and he gets much more realistic and well-explained development compared to Liara. Garrus is a character. I don't personally like him, but I acknowledge how he works. Liara isn't so much a character as she is a plot device in my opinion. Look at many of the major developments in the story, and look at how many of them are pushed forward by Liara alone.
The main fallacy behind it is that you're asking a loaded question about why Liara gets this treatment or topic, yet Garrus doesn't. I'm going to make an assumption (and bite myself in the ass) that you don't think it's fair? It may well not be, but it not being fair that people argue about Liara doesn't make any argument against her any less incorrect. You have to argue with those points on their own to prove them false, not just ask 'why aren't people getting upset over Garrus then?'
Garrus doesn't generally get the treatment because he isn't anywhere near as pervasive or intrusive in the series as Liara is. For example, you don't have to recruit Garrus in ME1. In ME2, he can die. He's not a major plot essential character that cannot be killed or had their influence on the PC diminished. He isn't constantly intruding in private areas or acting more intimate with Shepard than his love interest. He's not the sole focus of several external stories, he's not shoehorned into media, and he gets much more realistic and well-explained development compared to Liara. Garrus is a character. I don't personally like him, but I acknowledge how he works. Liara isn't so much a character as she is a plot device in my opinion. Look at many of the major developments in the story, and look at how many of them are pushed forward by Liara alone.
I'm not argueing, I'm just asking questions.
I don't understand people's obsession with Liara really, on both sides of the coin. I see her as the best LI for Femshep over the trilogy but that's about it.
She's no more belieavble (or better/worse written) than any other character in the series, yet people are just obsessed with her. Very strange.
I wouldn't call Liara a Mary Sue either, she is terribly written though. Like jtav said her character and motivations changed depending on the story, something her VA Ali Hillis has even complained about.
http://www.rpgsite.n...illis-interview
RPGSite: In the event, Liara did return but she changed
from wearing her heart on her sleeve to being quite an emotionally
hardened character. How did you adjust your approach to the role in
order to incorporate that change in her personality?
Ali: Quite honestly, the things Liara was going through
in Mass Effect 2 weren’t explained to me, they didn’t clue me in that
there were changes so they were giving me interesting directions that I
didn’t understand when I would read the line.
Let’s say I’m saying, “Shepard, over here”; before it would be quite
gentle but everything became more urgent, she became less analytical and
more reactive as a character and the more reactive she was, the less
analytical, the more confused the actress became [laughs]. I was just,
“what is going on with her?”
Finally we took a break, I started asking questions and they explained
but I think a lot of my performance in that game is me flying blind. As
an actress I need justification. I need that when I watch a movie, I
need that when I play a game, I need that when I play a role. I need to
know why I’m doing what I’m doing.
That’s just a pitfall of recording video games. I really think with RPGs
and gaming gearing much more towards the drama and the relationships of
things, if they want the legitimate experience and if they’re going to
hire TV and film and theatre actors to play these roles, we need to know
a lot about these characters.
RPGSite: Were you disappointed that Liara took more a backseat role in number 2?
Ali: I really don’t know how big the roles are until
the game is released, I’m never sure how long the games are and with
Liara I think I was doing so much recording at the time that I was just
trying to fit my sessions together, quite honestly [laughs].
I think I was feeling that the role was a little smaller this time, but
like I said I was kind of leaving sessions a bit frustrated with not
understanding what was going on with her. My first experience with Mass
Effect 1, I loved Liara so much and I still love Liara, I’m just hoping
that if we do 3 that things are a little more clear.
For the gamer as well, because you guys are smart and you know your
characters. I got a question from one very intuitive young lady who said
something to the tune of, “I don’t understand the changes to Liara in
Mass Effect 2…?” and I read in her dot dot dot question mark, “why? Why?
Why did they change her?” [Laughs]
Bioware had no idea what they were doing with her. Actually, hold on, they did know, but it was terribly handled and extremely ill advised.
I have no idea what's so 'terribly written' about her.
I have no idea what's so 'terribly written' about her.
Then I assume you didn't read the two previous comments, because they were pretty clear. Liara's character is not consistent and her skills change in order to make her fit into the story better. That's bad writing.
No.
How consistent would your character (you, yourself, in real life) be after saving your saviour from the claws of death, at the same time losing one of your best friends to some dude for a 2 year long torture session? I bet you'd be just the same person you were before. Totally consistent. Cause you know, consistency means character. (wtf)
And people learn things you know.
I have no idea what's so 'terribly written' about her.
She isn't terrible written. "Liara's character is not consistent" is really an absurd complaint. As of all characters in ME1 she is the only one for who a more or less dramatic change actually makes sense. ME2 for example showcases a different side to Liara's personality, and presents a character that has, to a certain degree, lost her idealistic perception of the galaxy.
And her skills didn't change either (what are these skills that changed?).
As of all characters in ME1 she is the only one for who a more or less dramatic change actually makes sense.
Oh, from a civilian with no combat or weapons training and experience to someone who's on par with a veteran soldier? Sure, that's exactly as if we maid Traynor a squadmate all of a sudden.And her skills didn't change either (what are these skills that changed?).
According to whom? Lore-wise, Liara is already a powerful biotic when we meet her. Is Traynor a powerful biotic? Liara traveled the Terminus systems and the Attican Traverse for decades...alone. Did Traynor travel a lawless region in the galaxy? Liara had to deal with pirates, slavers and ferocious animals before most of our other squadmates were even born (as she tells you in ME1).With her interests, it only makes sense she trained her own natural abilities for protection.
If she went through a dramatic character change in ME2, that'd be totally fine. The problem is, that she reverts to a lot of her ME1 personality in ME3. Her character is going zig-zag.No.
How consistent would your character (you, yourself, in real life) be after saving your saviour from the claws of death, at the same time losing one of your best friends to some dude for a 2 year long torture session? I bet you'd be just the same person you were before. Totally consistent. Cause you know, consistency means character. (wtf)
And people learn things you know.
Guest_MyNameIsSarita_*
She isn't terrible written. "Liara's character is not consistent" is really an absurd complaint. As of all characters in ME1 she is the only one for who a more or less dramatic change actually makes sense. ME2 for example showcases a different side to Liara's personality, and presents a character that has, to a certain degree, lost her idealistic perception of the galaxy.
And her skills didn't change either (what are these skills that changed?).
See this is why it would have, perhaps, been better to introduce Liara's character as using her biotic powers to fight off some of the Geth in ME1 before getting herself trapped. Then we rush in to help rescue her.
David's answer: She is not 'fainty' in ME1. Any heroic individual will be tired after their meaningful conflict, especially when the hero is there to comfort them and train them from being a shy and meek civilian specialist into one of the best soldiers in the galaxy in a matter of weeks. And the second part is nonsense. There is nothing wrong with having mandatory characters that the player can't define their relationships with. There is nothing wrong with Liara being 'forced' to be Shepard's best friend. Without meaningful characters, you wouldn't have a good story, and BioWare knows how to make a better story than any fans do. All these people shill and complain about Liara being a 'bad' character because she's good and heroic and smart and beautiful. It's weak of course. They can't handle the fact that they'll never be anything, with no power. All these 'renegade' players. How childish.
If you can't tell, I'm pretty bored. So I decided to imitated David.
That's creepy, how accurate that is.
No.
How consistent would your character (you, yourself, in real life) be after saving your saviour from the claws of death, at the same time losing one of your best friends to some dude for a 2 year long torture session? I bet you'd be just the same person you were before. Totally consistent. Cause you know, consistency means character. (wtf)
And people learn things you know.
Oh so personal loss makes you, yourself in real life a qualified secret agent/ overseer of an intelligence agency. Maybe I should save and lose people more often. I'd be James Bond in no time.
According to whom? Lore-wise, Liara is already a powerful biotic when we meet her. Is Traynor a powerful biotic? Liara traveled the Terminus systems and the Attican Traverse for decades...alone. Did Traynor travel a lawless region in the galaxy? Liara had to deal with pirates, slavers and ferocious animals before most of our other squadmates were even born (as she tells you in ME1).With her interests, it only makes sense she trained her own natural abilities for protection.
Guest_MyNameIsSarita_*
No more out of the ordinary than garrus' arc (failed c-sec > batman > high command). I don't see why it is out of the question liara would have had some training., given the type of operations she is on.
Just like tali in fact.
Although all the ladies needed rescuing in ME1 (which is where prejudice against Liara begins); Ashley was in full combat in ME1 and Tali threw herself into combat...Liara was just trapped, so everyone assumes she can't fight or hold her own. Of course, I have no problem with her character changing/growing over the course of the game, in fact I prefer Liara in ME2 over ME1, she may go full commando against Nyxeis and Vasir, but is still the sweet natured girl she was in ME1 come ME2 when you take her back to your cabin and she displays her softer side.
Retour en haut