Fair enough, but I think Shepard is held back from being a great character by relying so much on the input of players, though the same can be said of Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age protagonists. They will never be on the level like someone like Joel from TLoU for example. Oh well, that's the price of being a protagonist in an RPG I guess.
Thats a standard failing of any character meant to be a player avatar.
Fair enough, but I think Shepard is held back from being a great character by relying so much on the input of players, though the same can be said of Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age protagonists. They will never be on the level like someone like Joel from TLoU for example. Oh well, that's the price of being a protagonist in an RPG I guess.
I disagree completely again. I think any protagonist that's player-defined (for the most part) is inherently superior to any defined character, because I don't have to deal with characterization I dislike or despise, and can characterize him for the most part myself. I hated Joel from Last of Us for that reason. I didn't want to save Ellie. I'd have sacrificed her in a moment for the greater good. Or with say, Uncharted. Drake would be dumping Elena really fast for Chloe, and he'd be a lot richer if the game allowed me control over them. And yes, I do feel that when I can't control characters, it's a flaw for the game.
I don't consider that blandness. I think protagonists that are heavily player controlled are better than characterized ones. It allows me a lot more agency and control over the character, and I believe BW was rightly criticized for trying to make characterization for Shepard in ME3 go beyond player control.
I disagree completely. Let's be honest, when you let the player control aspects of their Shepard, he becomes the greatest thing since sliced bread. Mine is basically an avatar for me to make him into whatever I want him to be. For nearly all the characters in the series, he's more interesting because of this.
That's why I like it when they leave it up to the players. When that doesn't happen, I end up playing an idiotic fool who I feel deserves to lose in the most crushingly and suffering way possible. Especially when it's a BW game, since they put their morality into it.
Very much this. When you leave it up to the players, Massively and I can play the same game with the same character and yet have completely different experiences.
I want Massively to play his character. I want me to play my character, and I want Mac to play his character.
Very much this. When you leave it up to the players, Massively and I can play the same game with the same character and yet have completely different experiences.
I want Massively to play his character. I want me to play my character, and I want Mac to play his character.
I wanted my Shepard to not join the Spectres, to choose other squadmates on Virmire, and to not cooperate with Cerberus. Harumph, I tell you!
Why are you being so smug?
Why are you being so smug?
It's a fair point. Your Shepard---not your Commander, but your Shepard---has always been at least partially on the rails.
And that's not "smug". That's playfully expressing my position.
It's a fair point. Your Shepard---not your Commander, but your Shepard---has always been at least partially on the rails.
And that's not "smug". That's playfully expressing my position.
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that being able to control your PC's personality was superior to having a predefined/established character and why I felt that way.
I'd call it a jab. You really came off as condescending and passive-aggressive.
That wasn't really what I was saying. I was saying that being able to control your PC's personality was superior to having a predefined/established character and why I felt that way.
I'd call it a jab.
I understand that, and I'm saying that you didn't actually have the control that you think you did in this trilogy. There are many different ways people would have probably liked to handle their Shepard in ME1 and ME2 that weren't allotted to them.
See it as a jab all you'd like, man.
Come on guys, Iakus isn't that bad.
Nope. Nice guy, overall. Don't think that goes unappreciated, given the intolerable types that come and go around here. Maybe a little too nice, though. 
As for Shepard, I never felt that he was truly "my" character beyond ME1. He felt like half-BioWare's since ME2. In truth, I don't really mind that, so long as I get to control the things important to me -- which I did get to, sometimes, but not always.
Shepard is my favorite character if headcanon is allowed, and one of my least without it.
Shepard is my favorite character if headcanon is allowed, and one of my least without it.
Hehe, same. This never happened to me with any other Bioware protagonist.
I understand that, and I'm saying that you didn't actually have the control that you think you did in this trilogy. There are many different ways people would have probably liked to handle their Shepard in ME1 and ME2 that weren't allotted to them.
See it as a jab all you'd like, man.
I would disagree with this sentiment. I think you're trying to overdo the bit where literally any option cannot be possible by claiming that I'm wrong because of it. As far as personality goes, you're given a lot of leeway and control that I feel contradicts what you're saying in the first two games.
And yeah, I do see it as a snarky comment that has some unpleasant undertones.
I would disagree with this sentiment. I think you're trying to overdo the bit where literally any option cannot be possible by claiming that I'm wrong because of it. As far as personality goes, you're given a lot of leeway and control that I feel contradicts what you're saying in the first two games.
And yeah, I do see it as a snarky comment that has some unpleasant undertones.
I disagree with your summation of my position. The Spectre comment was pushing it, but, really, it'd be easy to say "no, thanks" to the council and instead opt to go full-on renegade with Shadow Broker connections to hunt down Saren. Virmire? Absolutely could choose somebody else for those roles. Cerberus command? That's where the prominent railroading really starts, and it's something that's pretty easy to pick at across the entire game (as HYR mentioned, a half-BioWare Shepard). As far as personality goes, ME1 and ME2 are both lacking in reasonable mid-ground options for both colors. It's tricky to find a non-spastic balance between them; it took me three or four runs through both to get right, and probably two in ME3.
Also, Massively, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to pick at my character and mannerisms. That is unpleasant in itself, and it's something I notice you doing with a lot of people around here.
Virmire? Absolutely could choose somebody else for those roles.
Ah, If only Jenkins was alive.
Ah, If only Jenkins was alive.
Talk about a railroaded death by way of stupidity and plot demands.
And that's at the very beginning of the trilogy's first mission!
Also, Massively, I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to pick at my character and mannerisms. That is unpleasant in itself, and it's something I notice you doing with a lot of people around here.
Again I'd disagree. I've never seen a problem with the middle of the road options that other people have seen. The worst problem is indeed where the game starts to make you gravitate towards one option or the other based on your alignment rather than your persuasiveness or charm/intimidate meter that you'd be able to conscientious control. But I don't see anything actually stopping a middle route from occurring. It's not plot railroading on that note. It's personal and emotional control.
It tends to be unpleasant when you act unpleasant, Dream. Endless loop of abuse, who said what, the whole shebang; I won't say who started what, but lets leave at ending it. Want me to stop? Don't be unpleasant, and tell me when I'm unpleasant so I don't have to have someone else be unpleasant (and not wait to tell me otherwise), so that I really have no need to get unpleasant, as I am here, and so that we don't get even more unpleasant on this (since I know I at least have plenty to say that probably shouldn't be said on this matter). You're not unpleasant, I'm not unpleasant, then nobodies unpleasant except for David.
I think I'll make that my word for the day... Unpleasant.
Fair enough, but I think Shepard is held back from being a great character by relying so much on the input of players, though the same can be said of Elder Scrolls and Dragon Age protagonists. They will never be on the level like someone like Joel from TLoU for example. Oh well, that's the price of being a protagonist in an RPG I guess.
Dragon Age does the best job of giving you the opportunity to turn a "clean slate" character into one with personality and force. I mean come on, sarcastic Hawke? It's a function of having many more emotion/passing comment wheels, instead of "decision" wheels, so to speak. The ME wheel seems very archaic compared to what DA2 does with it, at least from my experience.
Shep's bland because it's way too easy for her to fall into the archetype of dumb, brash action hero who isn't nearly as good as the narrative says they are. And they can feel like a god-mode avatar, rather than a person.
As for railroading, I'm fairly tolerant of plot railroading, but not emotional railroading. Although even then, I submit the sheer ineptness of ME3 caused most of the complaints. They didn't give us the player a reason to feel for the kid. I just rolled my eyes.
I also think Shepard's dialogue lines themselves are simply worse than, say, the Warden or Hawke's.
I thought the kid worked as a symbol, but when Shepard brings him up specifically after that it's a bit too much.
If it had been Anderson who was killed at the start and then appeared in the dreams.. Then you might be talking.
I think the very concept of the dreams is negative. It goes too much into forcing characterization onto Shepard. For instance, I didn't really like how the game (ME3) canon'ed you into being close to Anderson when you could leave things negatively back on the Citadel.
As for railroading, I'm fairly tolerant of plot railroading, but not emotional railroading. Although even then, I submit the sheer ineptness of ME3 caused most of the complaints. They didn't give us the player a reason to feel for the kid. I just rolled my eyes.
I still maintain that you're not supposed to "feel" for the kid, but appreciate what the kid represents enough for it to resonate.
If it had been Anderson who was killed at the start and then appeared in the dreams.. Then you might be talking.
I don't have a problem with Anderson being killed at the beginning. Just wouldn't want him in the dreams since my Shepard didn't really care about him.
As far as emotional railroading goes, this occurs in little bits every time you select one of the dialogue options ... and another piece of dialogue emerges that either takes the option to another level or includes something altogether not included. That's a symptom going back to ME1.
I still maintain that you're not supposed to "feel" for the kid, but appreciate what the kid represents enough for it to resonate.
It still fails in that aspect too. Personifying all the pain, suffering, and death that is happening and putting it onto one person and feeling upset about it really misses the mark a lot.
To compare it to something, it's like the scene in Black Hawk Down near the end when the U.N. Convoy is leaving the city on the Mogadishu Mile at daybreak and the Humvee stops as an old man carries the body of a child past him. That scene was supposed to personify the carnage taking place, and it was a simpler, much more succinct summation, and much more powerfully resonating theme because of it, whereas in ME3, everything keeps going back to this one child. It borders on narm territory, especially since you never see much of the rest of the carnage of the war, or its affect on people.
I'd still argue against the forced characterization, but I at least wouldn't be complaining that it is in and of itself bad.
Retour en haut