29 réponses à ce sujet

[cap and gown]

I coming near to the end of another trilogy run and I am finding it hard to keep track of the thread that makes this Shepard who she is. I have always had that problem by the time I get to ME3. I start out in ME1 with a vision of who the Shepard I am about to play is, but lose sight of it somewhere around Rannoch. Mainly, this is a problem with the lack of thematic coherence across the trilogy.

 

In ME1 a clear theme is one of "human self-reliance/xenophobia" vs "cooperation". But that just gets lost in the next two titles. In ME2 there seems to be a "pro-Cerberus" vs "anti-Cerberus" theme, though it doesn't play out very well if you ever try to take the "pro-Cerberus" path. Most of the script seems to pretty much be oriented around Shepard distrusting Cerberus no matter which option you chose. And by the time you get to ME3 Shepard starts out "anti-Cerberus" no matter what path she chose in ME2. As for ME3, I don't really see a coherent theme playing out in the choices Shepard can make.

 

In ME1 and ME2 there was a lot of "micro-RP" where you could choose to be a jerk or not in any particular situation, but not much in the way of "macro-RP" where you choose an alignment, for instance, pro-Templar or pro-Mage.

 

If we were to have another trilogy, I would hope that a consistent theme for the entire series would be plotted out so that we can drive our character in one direction or another, rather than simply deciding if he/she is a jerk or not in any particular situation.

[SporkFu]

I felt this too in my recent (mostly) renegade run. In ME2 I was trying to be anti-alien/pro-Cerberus but the game doesn't make it very easy to stay that way. There is a conversation with TIM just before...

Spoiler

going to Horizon where shep can tell him to call the Alliance for back-up and TIM will answer, "I don't want them getting in our way." Suddenly TIM wasn't about saving people, but getting to the loot before anyone else.

 

Heh, It's not like it was a big reveal. No matter how much my shep may have shared his ideas about humanity's place in the galaxy, it wasn't hard to see he always had other motives too. But I could imagine her thinking that, no matter what species, her only real allies were on the Normandy. From a role-playing POV I chose that conversation to be the turning point from pro- to anti-Cerberus. 

[themikefest]

In ME1 and ME2 I can hate everyone, but in ME3, I'm forced to like characters I don't like, dialogue I don't agree with but have no control over and some of the actions I have no control over. In ME3, I was playing femshep's stunt double.

[RedCaesar97]

You know what is kind of funny?

 

In ME2, there were a few threads talking about how "Shepard was an emotional brick", how no matter the circumstance, Shepard showed no real emotion to the given situation or ongoing plot.

 

Some players tried to counter that argument, saying that trying to give Shepard more emotion was a bad idea and the current system was better. The current system allowed for players to control the response and role-play the emotion/reason behind the response. Giving Shepard more emotion would require the writers to give Shepard more of a defined personality and more clear reason behind the actions you can choose, which could prevent your Shepard from being "your Shepard".

 

Fast-forward to ME3 and the writers decided to give us a more emotional Shepard. But to do that, they add/removed stuff that angered and frustrated some players on these forums, namely:

 - "auto-dialogue"

 - fewer dialogue wheel choices

 

And Cap and Gown, as you have pointed out, it actually prevents "your Shepard" from carrying over throughout the games, particularly from ME2 to ME3 as some of what you perceived to be your Shepard gets dropped to make room for a more emotional Shepard.

 

 

Probably getting off topic but I that just came to mind as I read this thread. Sorry for the derailment.

 

 

Personally, I usually do not have a problem role-playing across the trilogy as by this point I no longer have no emotional investment in the story having played it so many times. It is mostly about completing (a particular) Shepard's story than it is about experiencing the story. I am more about the gameplay at this point.

[Iakus]

The problem with adding emotion to Shepard in ME3 was that it added the writers' emotions to Shepard, not the players.

 

We were not given the option to determine what Shepard was feeling when.  

 

I mean, sure, my Shepard might lose it when Ash gets hurt, but other Shepards might not.  

 

Having forced emotions is as bad as being a brick, in many ways. 

[cap and gown]

People thought Shepard was brick in ME2? I never felt that way, but then I usually play femshep. But I am not talking about the emotional reaction of Shepard to any particular situation, but rather a mindset that Shepard has, whether that be pro- or anti-Alien, Cerberus, etc. Or whether Shepard is ruthless or trusting. Mostly renegade comes out as being a jerk rather than being ruthless. Each line of dialogue seems to live in its own little world, only effected by the immediate context, rather than fitting into a larger vision of how you can shape the main character.

[Bourne Endeavor]

Like Iakus said, when people advocated for a greater range of emotions. They meant emotions they were in control of, wherein they still were shaping Shepard based on preference. For instance, SageQueen said she headcanoned (and may have wrote) an entire PTSD scenario for her Shepard based on the events of ME2 and Shepard's death. That canon is completely devalued because BioWare opted to force it on her in ME3. Now I do not have any qualms with this being optional, but that wasn't the case. My hard and rigid Shepard was forced to spew an emotional response to things she hadn't previously cared about.

 

Simply put, it's frustrating.

[Aurawolf]

It isn't like there are huge RP elements after ME1 anyway. ME2 and ME3 are more or less just shot your way through the story, which is ways is fun but it isn't very deep. The other thing is you can really feel the disjointed the story from 1 to 3, what started out in ME1 kind of losses it's way through the rest of the games. Sure ultimately you face down the Reapers but really nothing you do impacts how the ending works out other then the 4 choices which are variations on a theme. I like Mass Effect but after the first one it gets a bit scattered.

[jros83]

The problem with adding emotion to Shepard in ME3 was that it added the writers' emotions to Shepard, not the players.

 

We were not given the option to determine what Shepard was feeling when.  

 

I mean, sure, my Shepard might lose it when Ash gets hurt, but other Shepards might not.  

 

Having forced emotions is as bad as being a brick, in many ways. 

Well said.

And if you look pay close attention, key bits of dialogue and choices the devs drop hints that they'd rather you take, you're also being forced to accommodate even the worldview of the devs or the particular dev who managed the majority of whatever part of the story is in question. I don't like that myself but then it's rather impossible to avoid.

[President of Boom]

In ME1 and ME2 I can hate everyone, but in ME3, I'm forced to like characters I don't like.

I completely agree with this. I wanted to high-five the not-yet-EDI on Mars for doing such a great job of rearranging Ashley's face, instead my Shep goes into precious-Ashley-must-live-because-my-psychological-well-being-nay-my-life-depends-on-it mode even if I choose the least caring renegade responses. Of course, no rodent posterior was given when Mordin died or when Thane was on his way to a stable career in daisy-pushing... or even when that guy, I forgot his name, died during the first mission in ME1. All three of them were both much closer to my Shep and a lot more interesting than Ashley, and yet Shepard practically keens over Ashley for several missions while Thane, Mordin and, yes, Dead Guy #1 get some stupid "they is dead for good" line.

[Farangbaa]

Oh?

My Turian hating Shep was really glad to see Garrus in ME2.

[KaiserShep]

I completely agree with this. I wanted to high-five the not-yet-EDI on Mars for doing such a great job of rearranging Ashley's face, instead my Shep goes into precious-Ashley-must-live-because-my-psychological-well-being-nay-my-life-depends-on-it mode even if I choose the least caring renegade responses.

 

That's great, but no Mass Effect game has ever allowed you to go off the rails like this. It's not like you were allowed to abandon both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire. No matter what, you had to save one. How you felt about either of them was meaningless. Thus far, the only companion we can leave for dead for no other reason than we feel like it is Zaeed, and that's under obviously different circumstances. We can't decide to leave Jack on Pugatory, even though there are very good reasons to. You couldn't just get on the escape pod in the prologue and leave Joker to die, even if you thought he was an idiot that deserved it.

[Farangbaa]

That's great, but no Mass Effect game has ever allowed you to go off the rails like this. It's not like you were allowed to abandon both Ashley and Kaidan on Virmire. No matter what, you had to save one. How you felt about either of them was meaningless. Thus far, the only companion we can leave for dead for no other reason than we feel like it is Zaeed, and that's under obviously different circumstances. We can't decide to leave Jack on Pugatory, even though there are very good reasons to. You couldn't just get on the escape pod in the prologue and leave Joker to die, even if you thought he was an idiot that deserved it.

Speaking of Jack: there's very good and logical reasons not to go to Purgatory at all. Most, if not all people, would have severe doubts about recruiting a convict so crazy and extreme she has to be put in in a space station.

But you have to, else you can't finish the game.

And then after recruiting and talking to her, she gives you many, many more reasons not to continue with her and kick her of the ship.

But you have to keep her and can't kick her off the ship.

Just like you can't kick off Legion or Tali after their dispute. A dispute I really have no time for to be honest. I'd have them both removed from the Normandy.

[KaiserShep]

Pretty much. The game has always been a bit rigid compared to Dragon Age. You could get certain characters killed under certain circumstances, yet you couldn't just dismiss them outright. If the game had things like approval/friendship meters and the ability to complete the entire game solo, then maybe it would've allowed that kind of thing.

[Mordokai]

Speaking of Jack: there's very good and logical reasons not to go to Purgatory at all. Most, if not all people, would have severe doubts about recruiting a convict so crazy and extreme she has to be put in in a space station.

But you have to, else you can't finish the game.

And then after recruiting and talking to her, she gives you many, many more reasons not to continue with her and kick her of the ship.

But you have to keep her and can't kick her off the ship.

Just like you can't kick off Legion or Tali after their dispute. A dispute I really have no time for to be honest. I'd have them both removed from the Normandy.

 

What's really important is that we're forced to be friends with Liara.

 

Priorities, man!

[Farangbaa]

What's really important is that we're forced to be friends with Liara.
 
Priorities, man!

Forced friendship with Garrus? Who cares, man, you can kill him!

Hilarious. Prefering having to kill someone to not be his friend to just accepting that the story demands you're friends with him/her/it.

And then I haven't even touched yet upon my AI-hating Shepard being forced to be on a ship that's equipped with one.

[KaiserShep]

I do like to select the option to complain at first though. It just seems natural after Hannibal, the AI on the citadel and the geth. I just RP that Shep and EDI get off to a rough start and grow fond of each other.

[Gtdef]

People say that Shepard is a brick because he just plays along. He either doesn't voice an opinion or even if he does it's just for the sake of "choosing a dialogue line", and then he plays along anyway. And the funny part is that things that are asked of him are very questionable, so the writers do something like that all the time.

 

-"Hey shepard, I need you to do this, but you will do this my way"

-"I'm a professional, I know better, why should I even do what you ask"

-"Because I ask you to"

-"Ok sure, lets go".

 

So the only option is to just not do the quest or just accept that the others know better and you are the best errand boy in the galaxy.

[Jorji Costava]

In response to the OP, the pro-Cerberus/anti-Cerberus arc of ME2 does seem like an extension of the human self-reliance vs. cooperation theme of ME1; you could argue that it's not well implemented, but I think it's definitely there in the back and forth you have with TIM. It kinda goes by the wayside in ME3, which is understandable since the plot of ME3 was always going to be "unite the galaxy"; it's hard to be the engine of unity that if you've already established yourself as a pro-human radical.

 

In general, the one consistent theme I see through the series is the idea of a need to break free of the past; pretty much every major conflict in the story consists of either a character or a whole group of people trying to break free of their baggage. Whether it's the loyalty missions of ME2 or the genophage and Rannoch arcs of ME3, every key story arc somehow ties into this. This even includes the destruction of the relays at the end: the game is treating the relays (built by the bad guys) as another sign of the way in which we're problematically bound to our history. I'm not sure this will help you too much with roleplaying (unless you're really dead set on playing the character who is stuck in their ways and will never change), but it does help make the trilogy seem more unified anyhow.

 

One possibility that might help is to just make more use of the character backgrounds from ME1 in roleplaying; how would those backgrounds plausibly affect your character's decisions? You could even try constructing a sort of arc for your character based on that. I'm not much of a deep-immersion roleplayer, but I know that there are some posters on these boards who are very good at this sort of thing, and who would probably be willing to give you some helpful ideas as far as how to improve your roleplaying experience in this way.

[L. Han]

The thing about Shepard is that he/she is often a 'live and let live' kind of person, often cracking down on people who try to interfere with other people's way of living, making changes as he/she see's fit (player's decision). Thus it is quite odd on the overarching personality when Shepard is a massive jerk most of the time.

 

I'm not here to rave about Paragon is better than Renegade (I find them to be both enjoyable in their own way) but it is quite undeniable that the renegade personality is quite inconsistent.

 

Some might argue that this inconsistency is quite a good reflection of how things are. As time pass by, people change their views and opinions on things, even if they do not admit or accept it.

[Mcfly616]

Shoooot.....this problem is apparent in the first 10 minutes of ME2. "Surrrre, I'll work with Cerberus." DERP

[SNascimento]

I believe the problem was that forcing things on your Shepard truly began in ME3 and that was a major break with what we had previously. Sure, some people might say they didn't want to join Cerberus in ME2, and I even read people didn't want to be a Spectre, but those are things necessary to the story, inherent to the limitations of making a videogame. But more importantly is that even if you didn't want to be with Cerberus in the second game of the trilogy, you could express it. And in the in the end of the game and more so in Mass Effect 3, you could have the sense that working with Cerberus was your only choice, that it was an "enemy of my enemy" type of scenario. 

Mass Effect 3 doesn't have that, it forces on you things that are personal and could very well have being avoided by working it like it was worked before. If it has been that way since the first game it would have not been a problem, but when you have two games to shape your Shepard and then that is take away from you in ways that can significant hurt your gameplay experience, well, it sucks. 

And since I have the chance I'll add: this is only the second biggest problem with ME3, the first one is the utterly and thoroughly butchery of Mass Effect 2 squadmates.

[AlanC9]

I don't quite follow that. You're not bothered by forcing things per se, you're only bothered by forcing things when it isn't necessary to force things? OK, but which forced things in ME3 weren't necessary? And how much work would it have taken to unforce them?

[KaiserShep]

The only forced things in ME3 that really bothered me were the dreams, though this is also because of the fact that they are playable sequences that are not fun. Of course there's Shepard's occasional emotional responses, like the look of despair after Thessia, but this isn't far off from Shepard's frustration after the Normandy was grounded in ME1. Had the apology bit been left as an option rather than autodialogue, it would've been fine.

[SporkFu]

The only forced things in ME3 that really bothered me were the dreams, though this is also because of the fact that they are playable sequences that are not fun. Of course there's Shepard's occasional emotional responses, like the look of despair after Thessia, but this isn't far off from Shepard's frustration after the Normandy was grounded in ME1. Had the apology bit been left as an option rather than autodialogue, it would've been fine.

Got to agree. Also got to say that shep's behavior after Thessia doesn't bother me that much, most of the time. It's usual in my games that shep has a pretty good relationship with the asari she encounters... well, the non-hostile ones, anyway. It's understandable to me that shep could react this way. But those particular playthroughs where shep doesn't really connect with the asari, that scene does stand out.

 

The Kai Leng sequence bothers me more. shep has never failed to shoot down a gunship when presented with the opportunity.... oh wait, Vido Santiago (possibly). Not to mention Kai Leng should have died a half-dozen times in that fight.