130 réponses à ce sujet

[Vazgen]

I don't know how he's a wannabe badass. Anyone who blows that much **** up is a genuine badass.

 

That whole Thane intro was cool. That's my favorite of the Illium missions.

 

But at least you recognize what I mean... It was moving into cheesier territory. You just don't like it. Fair enough.

My Shepard isn't. He's doing whatever it takes to survive and complete the mission. Such character is incompatible with one-liners like "I got better", "You talk too much", "You're working too hard" etc.

 

I'll take ME2 and Citadel over ME3 any day. Give me action, cheese and one liners over whining about conventional victory and "art", no questions asked.

 

The feel of ME1 moving to ME2 was awesome. ME1 you're working within the system to assemble a team of irregulars to combat a threat. ME2 you're on the fringes, assembling an even bigger team of badasses to take out a threat. Even though we fought faceless mercs more than anything ME2 felt the most like I was on a space adventure with limitless potential. The Reaper plot by itself is nothing special at best and ME3 was a huge step backwards in making you feel like in the world.

I guess that's where our differences lie. I'll take ME1 and ME3 over ME2 any day. IMO Citadel DLC doesn't fit in the trilogy. And ME2 did make me feel in the world - the world of Schwarzenegger movies. I can see the appeal, but it's not what's Mass Effect for me and feels out of place. ME3 was far more immersive for me, I actually felt the war going on all around the galaxy.

[Vazgen]

To each their own. I'm not sure I understand though. 

 

The Diehard comparison I made earlier is fitting... he's doing what it takes to survive too. And he's full of one liners. 

 

Hell, I was just watching a documentary on D-Day last night. They were interviewing one British soldier who talked about how his unit had made bets on who'd get killed first, and just generally made jokes about the whole thing. Sometimes this is the best approach when facing grim circumstances..

I'm not saying it's a bad approach or anything. Just that my character, the way I envisioned him, would not do so. 

[God]

To each their own. I'm not sure I understand though. 

 

The Diehard comparison I made earlier is fitting... he's doing what it takes to survive too. And he's full of one liners. 

 

Hell, I was just watching a documentary on D-Day last night. They were interviewing one British soldier who talked about how his unit had made bets on who'd get killed first, and just generally made jokes about the whole thing. Sometimes this is the best approach when facing grim circumstances..

 

Speaking as a Soldier, I know my sense of humor is a lot more sick, twisted, and disturbing than what any normal (or even sane) human would find humorous. Then again, I don't acknowledge my own interior self as something that is entirely human, but something more. 

 

This is known as black humor, or gallows humor. It can be rather dry, dark, sardonic, and twisted. And I don't think you're interpreting or connecting the idea you're purporting for the games with the style of humor you're referencing.

 

In short, your point here is a non-sequiter. The type of humor I use isn't just a coping mechanism. It likely shows how literally deranged (by conventional standards; I maintain I'm probably more enlightened than most at my own nature. You don't find out what the **** you're made of working in some office building or classroom.) many of us are. And it serves as a reflection and contrast to how dark, serious, and even dramatic our work is. Not the lackadaisical and silly cheese you seem to be connecting it too.

[CrutchCricket]

Speaking as a Soldier, I know my sense of humor is a lot more sick, twisted, and disturbing than what any normal (or even sane) human would find humorous. Then again, I don't acknowledge my own interior self as something that is entirely human, but something more. 

 

This is known as black humor, or gallows humor. It can be rather dry, dark, sardonic, and twisted. And I don't think you're interpreting or connecting the idea you're purporting for the games with the style of humor you're referencing.

 

In short, your point here is a non-sequiter. The type of humor I use isn't just a coping mechanism. It likely shows how literally deranged (by conventional standards; I maintain I'm probably more enlightened than most at my own nature. You don't find out what the **** you're made of working in some office building or classroom.) many of us are. And it serves as a reflection and contrast to how dark, serious, and even dramatic our work is. Not the lackadaisical and silly cheese you seem to be connecting it too.

And? Apart from the anecdotal nature, what is your point? That real people don't spout one-liners? I'm shocked.

 

I usually take you at your word about your experiences. But this is needless. You've confirmed the principle is sound- humor, even, or perhaps espcially the black/gallows kind is used in tense situations to relieve tension and cope with the stress. That's enough to justify the humor in media like this. The differences are just details and not particularly relevant ones.

 

Though I have my doubts that "real battlefield humor" is the horror show you make it out to be (you seem to be saying more about yourself than what is typical), it's altogether quite likely the audience wouldn't "get it" regardless, not being there in the situation themselves. Hence the tone change to something more campy. Even the most outlandish stereotypes are based on some element of truth, however distorted and even the most discredited tropes are there because of a successful repeating pattern.

 

So whether you as a real soldier have ever said "stick around" after impaling someone doesn't matter. Humor happens as a result of **** happening and this is simply the obviously less than realistic reflection of it.

[God]

And? Apart from the anecdotal nature, what is your point? That real people don't spout one-liners? I'm shocked.

 

I usually take you at your word about your experiences. But this is needless. You've confirmed the principle is sound- humor, even, or perhaps espcially the black/gallows kind is used in tense situations to relieve tension and cope with the stress. That's enough to justify the humor in media like this. The differences are just details and not particularly relevant ones.

 

Though I have my doubts that "real battlefield humor" is the horror show you make it out to be (you seem to be saying more about yourself than what is typical), it's altogether quite likely the audience wouldn't "get it" regardless, not being there in the situation themselves. Hence the tone change to something more campy. Even the most outlandish stereotypes are based on some element of truth, however distorted and even the most discredited tropes are there because of a successful repeating pattern.

 

So whether you as a real soldier have ever said "stick around" after impaling someone doesn't matter. Humor happens as a result of **** happening and this is simply the obviously less than realistic reflection of it.

 

I'm not even talking about one liners. I'm talking about his actual inability (and yours by the looks of it) to really make the connection on the dryer and darker side of military humor to a point where the cheese he's saying that defines the series (up to saying it's not really supposed to be taken seriously because of it) isn't compelling. I'm specifically talking about his reference to the documentary he watched.

 

What are you even going on about now? I don't even know here. I think you're talking about something that isn't really pervasive to the discussion nor part of my point. I'm calling out a guy's inability to link context behind humor in reality and a video game. The humor comes from the setting, whereas he's saying that the humor is the setting. I'm talking about Mass Effect, and you're talking about... whatever.

[God]

You are human. That's one of your main problems right there. To not even see that in yourself. And I don't know any soldiers like you. I believe you are one..don't get me wrong.. I just don't think your attitude has anything to do with that. That's coming from somewhere else. I don't even see dark humor from you, let alone plain humor. It's just surliness, dryness, and "sociopathic" affectations. My family is full of soldiers. I'm more than likely to see one of them light their farts on fire... than this stuff.

 

Not everyone around here comes from a classroom or office building either.

 

Physically yes, I am human. Mentally, yes, I am human, but not in a way I think a lot of people tend to think of themselves as. I'd rather you not try and play the 'you don't know what you are' card on me. Brings around the arrogance on you to tell me how I think and the flaw of it? 

 

As I said, I don't believe you're going to really understand or comprehend my system of humor. You said it yourself, I'm rather dry as a person. I don't dispute the other labels. I'm arrogant. I'm a dry person towards most people, and I've got said socipathic affections (which you seem to mistake as me labeling myself as a sociopath, which is not correct). And it means that I'm not very relatable. Which is why I'm not surprised that you don't recognize my own view on humor.

 

Of course, I should say that being a Soldier isn't necessarily a guarantee of the MO that I tend to follow, personally and professionally. I tend to adopt a more... Machiavellian perspective on war, and I'm not afraid to view it as it is and see that what I do isn't something that's particularly acceptable to most people. It's a dirty business, and I think that for the average Soldier, I don't know how they might react in my own shoes. Otherwise, I'm not going to mention any details about my professional career. That's an area I don't want to touch at all. 

 

I didn't even see any point where you questioned legitimacy. You're fine there. I'm not out to make waves in that regard.

 

This is getting off topic though. I'll leave it to you to decide whether my worldview is unhealthy or insightful.

[CrutchCricket]

I'm not even talking about one liners. I'm talking about his actual inability (and yours by the looks of it) to really make the connection on the dryer and darker side of military humor to a point where the cheese he's saying that defines the series (up to saying it's not really supposed to be taken seriously because of it) isn't compelling. I'm specifically talking about his reference to the documentary he watched.

 

What are you even going on about now? I don't even know here. I think you're talking about something that isn't really pervasive to the discussion nor part of my point. I'm calling out a guy's inability to link context behind humor in reality and a video game. The humor comes from the setting, whereas he's saying that the humor is the setting. I'm talking about Mass Effect, and you're talking about... whatever.

Err... what?

 

StreetMagic brought up a documentary on soldiers using humor as a coping mechanism as justification for Shepard doing the same (though the type of humor may and does vary). You started going on about how your humor is inhuman because that's how you want to present yourself. So what did that accomplish?

 

The only inability to stick to the point is yours. The context between humor and video games vs humor and real life is clear. In both cases humor is used in stressful situations. The type of humor is obviously different. But the action to use it is not. Who said anything about "definiting the series"? Don't throw loaded terms.

[God]

Err... what?

 

StreetMagic brought up a documentary on soldiers using humor as a coping mechanism as justification for Shepard doing the same (though the type of humor may and does vary). You started going on about how your humor is inhuman because that's how you want to present yourself. So what did that accomplish?

 

The only inability to stick to the point is yours. The context between humor and video games vs humor and real life is clear. In both cases humor is used in stressful situations. The type of humor is obviously different. But the action to use it is not. Who said anything about "definiting the series"? Don't throw loaded terms.

 

I was more more of the view that he brought it up to somehow rationalize how he sees the series as humorous (or non-serious) at its core. As in, it's presented as something that is meant to be taken as larger-than-life comic book esque at adventure filled with self-aware references to its own meta standing. 

 

I was making a point to show how humor doesn't necessarily follow as a primary theme, and supporting my view of how the series is a more serious, dark, gritty, epic (in the classical form) cosmic war story. I would like to see the humor presented in a way that's reflective of that. Which is something I bring my own ideology onto. Then you started attacking it for some reason.

 

Otherwise, I'm getting the feeling we're talking past each other again. I don't think we're very good at this. 

 

As for defining the series, yes, that's where the topic drifted too. And that's what several of us have been discussing now. Get with it.

[CrutchCricket]

I was more more of the view that he brought it up to somehow rationalize how he sees the series as humorous (or non-serious) at its core. As in, it's presented as something that is meant to be taken as larger-than-life comic book esque at adventure filled with self-aware references to its own meta standing. 

 

I was making a point to show how humor doesn't necessarily follow as a primary theme, and supporting my view of how the series is a more serious, dark, gritty, epic (in the classical form) cosmic war story. I would like to see the humor presented in a way that's reflective of that. Which is something I bring my own ideology onto. Then you started attacking it for some reason.

 

Otherwise, I'm getting the feeling we're talking past each other again. I don't think we're very good at this. 

 

As for defining the series, yes, that's where the topic drifted too. And that's what several of us have been discussing now. Get with it.

I don't believe he ever said it was non-serious. He can speak for himself but all I saw mentioned was a shift into more comic book-y cheesy action territory, not a fundamental change.

 

Your point did nothing to really address that.

 

But whatever. I don't think there's a reason to keep at this.

[CrutchCricket]

Well, I do see it as light/fun (and humorous) at it's core. Humorous in the way comics and action movies are though. Not humorous like the "Hangover" or something.

 

But that's just the core. I still recognize the serious elements.

 

It's a bit disjointed though too.. it's almost like they're intentionally tapping into various subgenres with each game. Like maybe the first game is classic sci-fi. The second more akin to 80s/90s action and sci-fi. The last reminds me of current "blockbuster" films... I won't get too flippant and say it's like "Michael Bay", but I'm not sure what other label it fits. 

 

 

I'll say no more though. I don't want to derail more than I already have.

Well way to ninja me there. I really shouldn't have bothered trying to interpret this discussion.

 

But you're right about the influences for each game. The first ME was a direct homage to classic sci-fi works while ME2 drew more from later more adventurous action/scifi blends. I think that was directly recognized by the devs.

[Silvair]

@ Silvair (Ignoring the blatant Tali worship in this thread and others):

 

I don't quite understand how Kaidan's ME3 romance is "out of nowhere" or "last minute" (the last one baffles me especially considering his presence in the first game). Unless you're referring to the same-sex romance between him and male Shepard, to which I have to say.... I don't quite understand how Kaidan's ME3 romance is "out of nowhere" or "last minute".

 

If anything, his romance (and Ashley's, but just focusing on Kaidan since he's the topic of discussion) would be one of the more realized and developed in the entire series by the time ME3 rolls around. He and Shepard have known each other for a while, it's not like they're 2 strangers meeting for the first time and deciding to bone. They've worked together and have a history with one another, assuming he survives ME1. By the time ME3 rolls around and Shepard and Kaidan get together, they know what the other is like, both professionally and personally. Maybe I'm mistaken, but most healthy relationships between people are built on knowing who the other person is in the relationship. It's kind of a key factor in determining whether or not the relationship will work out.

Commenting more on how you don't hook up with him until like a couple hours before the entire trilogy ends anyway.  hard to make a connection to him when he was absent for ME2 and most of ME3.  And I didn't use him in ME1 either, as a squadmate (male shep).

 

Kaiden has the LEAST connection to Shepard out of all the LI's, I'd say.  Worked with them in ME1, but that's about it.

 

With Ashley it's a little different because male shep COULD romance her way back when.

 

Again yes I'm talking about gaymancing Kaiden, not Femshep hooking up with him in ME1.

 

 

That's if you play a Paragon. It's your own choice to pick dialogue like that. Then Jack herself says to cut the therapist crap out and it isn't "your thing" anyways. Even she knows Shepard is too cool for that.

 

But even then, Paragon finally gives up and says he can't "fix anything.... and that 'we're all nuts'". If you played it, you'd know this.

 

 

As for Miranda, I don't remember anything about being her therapist. She has a similar deal as Tali. A family related storyline.

I did play it, but I've only played my single Paragon shep, so I'm going by that experience. (Gonna be doing a femshep trilogy run if I can figure out how to do these texture mods on PC lol) Though I'll likely just shack up with Garrus, if anything.

 

With Miranda, its not as extreme as Jack but its more about Miranda's insecurities from being able to hold up the "Genetically perfect" image.

[Undead Han]

 

Kaiden has the LEAST connection to Shepard out of all the LI's, I'd say.  Worked with them in ME1, but that's about it.

 

It is implied that Kaidan and Shepard served together on the SSV Tokyo, along with Anderson. Having said that, a Cruiser is a much bigger ship with hundreds of crew members, and they don't seem to have known each other well. (Shepard only finding out about Kaidan's L2 implants from Chakwas, for example)

 

But considering there is a good possibility Shepard knew Kaidan much longer than he/she knew any of the other squadmates, I don't think it would be fair to say that there is the least connection between them compared to the others.

[Undead Han]

I've never been able to create a character that connected with Kaidan much. I've had him survive, but never got into the character. Ash was really cool back then (now she reminds me of Kaidan herself... she's more introverted, and doesn't talk **** as much).

 

He dies on Virmire for me, but I viewed him as a sort of bro character for Shepard before Garrus ends up in that role.

[fraggle]

Commenting more on how you don't hook up with him until like a couple hours before the entire trilogy ends anyway.  hard to make a connection to him when he was absent for ME2 and most of ME3.  And I didn't use him in ME1 either, as a squadmate (male shep).

 

Kaiden has the LEAST connection to Shepard out of all the LI's, I'd say.  Worked with them in ME1, but that's about it.

 

Even if you didn't use him as a squadmate you can still build a good friendship and learn about his past in ME1 if you talk to him regularly. And you can get a lot of interaction with him in ME3, even when he's in the hospital you will get e-mails from him and can visit him 3 or 4 times. And you can get him back more quick then Tali, for example.

 

Funny, it's the other way around for me, Kaidan works best. He's been there from the start, they have each other's backs in ME1 and find a way to completely trust each other in ME3 again. What about the other guys? ME2 squad wants you to do stuff for them to be loyal to you and everyone else is going their separate ways as well after Shepard "dies".

[Damdil]

It's really a matter of taste, although if you're starting with ME 3 Liara is your only choice. I would highly recommend to play ME 1+ME 2 before starting with ME 3. Without an imported save game, ME 3 is much more plain and less personal, as you you'll miss a lot of content, especially dialogue with your squadmates. If you already played ME1+ME2 and lost your saves, you can easily recreate one using the ME 3 savegame editor. Another option is to download a savegame which resembles your playthrough the most. 

 

Personally, my favorite is clearly Tali followed by Liara, although in my opinion, Liara is presented as LI in a way too obvious manner, making the whole thing feel less "natural" and interesting. Nevertheless, they both get by far the most content and dialogue compared to the other romance options and are avaible as squadmates, so you'll get a lot of party banter as well if you take them with you regularly. They both also tend towards a classic "sweetheart"-romance.

 

A lot of the other "former" LIs only get a pretty apperance, so without ever trying them (simply not interested), I would say you could be heavily disappointed as a fan.

[Pavan]

Miranda, Miranda and more Miranda

 

All day

 

Everyday

 

No competition, my only issue was that she (like the rest of the ME2 squad) got shafted - even with the Citadel DLC i always fel like Miranda should have joined the crew after we saved her sister.

 

 

I normally romance Ashley in ME1

then when she has a whiny fit on Horizon (and abandons Shepherd when he needed her most), i say "**** you!" and procede to chase after Miranda

 

I just finished my first run through of ME1 where i left Ash to die and romanced Liara (so i can see what Kaidan is like in ME3 and Liara romance)

But i seriously don't know if I could do ME2 while resisting Miranda

[SentinelMacDeath]

I always pick Kaidan ... my male Shep was pining for Kaidan ever since they first met in ME1. He's just a good guy all the way to the bones. To me he has plenty of character and then some.  If I'd ever not pick Kaidan I'd probably go with Liara, maybe Tali. I never warmed up to Miranda much so she's out for me

[Pavan]

I always pick Kaidan ... my male Shep was pining for Kaidan ever since they first met in ME1. He's just a good guy all the way to the bones. To me he has plenty of character and then some.  If I'd ever not pick Kaidan I'd probably go with Liara, maybe Tali. I never warmed up to Miranda much so she's out for me

 

Yeah Ill will be honest, at first she was really cold and abrasive, only cared about the mission, but after doing her loyalty mission to recue her sister i completely changed my mind.

 

I really don't like Liara in ME1 she just seemed so over dramatic and not very interesting.

In ME2 we barely see much but she seemed a lot colder

In ME3 She seemed like a compeltely different perosn to the one in ME1 - a person I liked more.

 

(Still doesn't beat Miranda though )

[aoibhealfae]

The only thing that made me stay away from Liara in ME1 was the part when she straight up confess that she gave you her virginity when she mindmeld with you (mindfrak.. literally). Essentially, you're already on a third base with her regardless of your preference.