103 réponses à ce sujet

[ThomasBlaine]

Funny thing.  In ME2 there was Miranda, the director the Lazarus Project, Kelly Chambers, the ship's counselor, Doctor Chakwas, Shepard's physician, Shepard's friend Joker.  The brilliant scientist Mordin Solus, the deeply spiritual (and nonjudgemental) Thane.  Probably others I haven't considered.

 

None of whom Shepard can confide in.  Not much for role-playing.

 

Yes, and of those only Miranda has the slightest idea what the Lazarus project actually did, which she would never in a million years tell Shepard beyond "We fixed you up. It was pretty hard, but we did it perfectly. Seriously, don't worry about it. Just focus on saving humanity."

 

And again, making a big deal of it or trying too hard to find out the truth isn't actually in Shepard's interest in case it becomes an issue or the real answer would sabotage him/her. A conversation where Shepard confides his/her feelings about the "near-death" experience in a trusted friend and is reassured would have been a nice option, yes, but the lack of it isn't entirely nonsensical.

[Pasquale1234]

Funny thing.  In ME2 there was Miranda, the director the Lazarus Project, Kelly Chambers, the ship's counselor, Doctor Chakwas, Shepard's physician, Shepard's friend Joker.  The brilliant scientist Mordin Solus, the deeply spiritual (and nonjudgemental) Thane.  Probably others I haven't considered.
 
None of whom Shepard can confide in.  Not much for role-playing.

Well - when I play ME2, I figure Shepard is going through a lot of different things.

The first involves a certain amount of incredulity and trying to understand how it is that she was not merely dead, but really most sincerely dead - but is now alive. There's a great deal of physical trauma - even though she's mostly healed, much of her body is... not her body. She isn't quite at home in it, and any mental and emotional processing having to do with her spiritual beliefs and whatever she might have expected to happen after death only adds to her confusion and sense of unreality. She can feel like she was cheated of that part of the cycle of life.

Then there's the fact that she's now working with people she doesn't really trust, working with someone she fully expects will betray her (and possibly humanity) at some point, and a load of misgivings about people doing what they did to her body without her knowledge and consent. She's concerned about what working with Cerberus will do to her reputation and how it might impact any hopes she might have of resuming her Alliance career. And she's doing it all on a ship loaded with monitoring devices and controlled by a Cerberus AI, where mutiny is always a possibility.

In short, she has a crapton of adjusting and processing to do on every level - physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. It is a very difficult and uncomfortable period of time for the character, and that is one of the reasons why ME2 is my least favorite of the trilogy - by a longshot.

Behaviorally, she sucks it all up and devotes herself to a mission she feels is worthwhile. She presents herself as the capable, competent, fully present leader they need her to be.

I'm actually glad the writers didn't show any of the internal processing she needed to do. Some things are better kept private, and I generally prefer it when writers don't try to meddle with the internal thoughts and feelings of my character. I was glad, though, that she was able to express something during the video viewings in ME3. IIRC, she was able to say something about bearing some uncertainty that she was really fully herself.

JMHO.

[Natureguy85]

The actual thoughts and feelings of the player character in a role-playing game have always been the player's to determine. There are many, many things a character might be thinking or feeling that are never overtly expressed in a role-playing game.

 

Well, it is a roleplaying game. After thinking about it, I've determined that the only reasonable thing for Shepard to do under the circumstances really is to pretend that it never happened.

 

Making a big deal of it would just make others uneasy or distrustful towards him/her, not to mention straining his/her own sanity, and nobody who has any answers can be trusted to actually give them straight as unfortunate revelations would just impair Shepard in assisting humanity - which Shepard isn't interested in either.

 

Well there is a serious question of how much Mass Effect is an RPG vs a 3rd person cover-based shooter with RPG elements. Either way, Shepard is a more defined character than, for example, Revan, the Jedi Exile, or the Warden. Those characters were much more of a blank slate for the player to shape.

 

This is not some minor thing. Shepard died. He was dead for two years. That's a big deal and should have been a major plot point rather than an excuse for a reset and a time jump. Even if you imagine that it makes sense for Shepard to hide it, that doesn't mean he will be able to. It also doesn't mean that it shouldn't affect other characters. Yet only Tali reacts in a manner that fits with the fact that Shepard died. Garrus, Ashley/Kaidan, Liara, Wrex, Anderson, and the general public react like they simply haven't seen him in awhile. Zaeed says Shepard survived, which we know isn't true.

 

If Shepard is struggling with issues due to being dead and brought back to life, why would this not be included in gameplay, at least when nobody is looking?

 

 

Yes, and of those only Miranda has the slightest idea what the Lazarus project actually did, which she would never in a million years tell Shepard beyond "We fixed you up. It was pretty hard, but we did it perfectly. Seriously, don't worry about it. Just focus on saving humanity."

 

And again, making a big deal of it or trying too hard to find out the truth isn't actually in Shepard's interest in case it becomes an issue or the real answer would sabotage him/her. A conversation where Shepard confides his/her feelings about the "near-death" experience in a trusted friend and is reassured would have been a nice option, yes, but the lack of it isn't entirely nonsensical.

 

You've just given Miranda the definition of a handwave. It was extremely nonsensical to have no scene discussing Shepard's death. This should have been a huge deal to this character and he acts like nothing happened. This could tie well into the ME3 idea of Shepard's mind breaking, causing him to imagine and dream about a little boy.

 

 

Well - when I play ME2, I figure Shepard is going through a lot of different things.

The first involves a certain amount of incredulity and trying to understand how it is that she was not merely dead, but really most sincerely dead - but is now alive. There's a great deal of physical trauma - even though she's mostly healed, much of her body is... not her body. She isn't quite at home in it, and any mental and emotional processing having to do with her spiritual beliefs and whatever she might have expected to happen after death only adds to her confusion and sense of unreality. She can feel like she was cheated of that part of the cycle of life.

Then there's the fact that she's now working with people she doesn't really trust, working with someone she fully expects will betray her (and possibly humanity) at some point, and a load of misgivings about people doing what they did to her body without her knowledge and consent. She's concerned about what working with Cerberus will do to her reputation and how it might impact any hopes she might have of resuming her Alliance career. And she's doing it all on a ship loaded with monitoring devices and controlled by a Cerberus AI, where mutiny is always a possibility.

In short, she has a crapton of adjusting and processing to do on every level - physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. It is a very difficult and uncomfortable period of time for the character, and that is one of the reasons why ME2 is my least favorite of the trilogy - by a longshot.

Behaviorally, she sucks it all up and devotes herself to a mission she feels is worthwhile. She presents herself as the capable, competent, fully present leader they need her to be.

I'm actually glad the writers didn't show any of the internal processing she needed to do. Some things are better kept private, and I generally prefer it when writers don't try to meddle with the internal thoughts and feelings of my character. I was glad, though, that she was able to express something during the video viewings in ME3. IIRC, she was able to say something about bearing some uncertainty that she was really fully herself.

JMHO.

 

Well I can't fault you for putting your personal role play headcanon above proper story telling as that's personal taste. I'm not there though. Again, Shepard is a more defined character and isn't "your character" as much as you and many others want to think. Everything you typed out is entirely head canon and inconsistent with what the game presents. It's also all stuff that should have been in the game. I don't understand why you're happy to have Shepard comment about their death a game after it happened and not in the game where it happened.

[Iakus]

 
I'm actually glad the writers didn't show any of the internal processing she needed to do. Some things are better kept private, and I generally prefer it when writers don't try to meddle with the internal thoughts and feelings of my character. I was glad, though, that she was able to express something during the video viewings in ME3. IIRC, she was able to say something about bearing some uncertainty that she was really fully herself.

JMHO.

Except it's not just Shepard.  It's everyone else who knew Shepard, or knew Shepard died.  There should have been scientific curiosity.  Philosophical or religious implications.  Heck Shepard's friends should have questions about what happened.  Even if they are questions Shepard may not have the answers to or even want to deal with.  This isn't a knock on the head.  This is DEATH.  

 

And Shepard should have been able to react to it.  And yes "Keep calm and soldier on" should be one of the options.  Or Shepard should be upset that he/she missed two years and has lost touch with friends and allies.  Or simply glad to be alive.  Or curious about he technology used.  Or p*ssed at the Collectors.  Or Stunned at the implications of Cerberus having this level of tech.

 

 But we got nothing in ME2.  ANd ME3 gave us a single instance of being able to essentially say "I'm sad" or "I'm p*ssed"  That to me isn't good role-play.

[SentinelMacDeath]

I didn't know that Kelly was the ship's counselor until i read a fic that mentioned it. I never talked to her. ME2 just had too many characters. At least there was Zaeed who's by far my favorite ME2 char (sorry Grunt). 

 

But yeah ... stop killing and reviving Shep! Just let him live for crying out loud. 

 

I was royally pissed when Horizon happens and Shep's just like "What's up?" like nothing ever happened and they don't give you a choice of acting out anything besides "I was dead for 2 years but it's cool cuz I'm awesome, no biggie" 

 

At least your Horizon character questions what's going on and doesn't just drop everything for Shep without question. 

[Canned Bullets]

No

[Pasquale1234]

Well I can't fault you for putting your personal role play headcanon above proper story telling as that's personal taste.

That's actually what role-playing is all about. The point is to put yourself in the shoes of the character who exists in this world and is going through this sequence of events. It's something I've been doing since my character was a voiceless, expressionless sprite on a screen.

I don't ask game devs for "proper story telling" (whatever that is). I might expect it from books, movies, television shows - but those characters are entirely written and controlled by the people who create and portray them - and even then, we see very little of what is actually going on in their inner world. Are we to believe that Shepard has no thoughts, feelings, or motives when she is, for example, walking to the bridge to converse with Joker? Or waiting behind cover for the next wave of enemies?
 

Again, Shepard is a more defined character and isn't "your character" as much as you and many others want to think.

I don't deny that Shepard is more Bioware's character than mine - and has been since ME1. She is, however, the character I'm given to play.
 

Everything you typed out is entirely head canon and inconsistent with what the game presents.

There's no inconsistency. People don't always express every thought or feeling they might have. In fact, I'd say that very few of them are ever overtly expressed. All I ask for / expect from RPG writers is that they avoid actively denying the motives of my character.
 

It's also all stuff that should have been in the game.

How? Why? A game is not a stream-of-consciousness novel. Movies aren't, either.
 

I don't understand why you're happy to have Shepard comment about their death a game after it happened and not in the game where it happened.

The character finally had an opportunity to see some behind-the-scenes videos that allowed some vague feelings and suspicions that had been bubbling under the surface for a long time to come up for expression. It was the right time and place, and she was with the right people to express them. Which, btw, is also a key feature of good storytelling.
 

Except it's not just Shepard. It's everyone else who knew Shepard, or knew Shepard died. There should have been scientific curiosity. Philosophical or religious implications.

The scientific curiosity really couldn't be addressed, since it was all space magic - which is apparently acceptable to NPCs in MEU. Philosophical / religious stuff usually isn't addressed much in these games, either, since people have some very deeply held beliefs about all of that.
 

Heck Shepard's friends should have questions about what happened. Even if they are questions Shepard may not have the answers to or even want to deal with.

How would you have them deal with questions nobody had the answer to or wanted to deal with?

The VS had a lot of questions and issues with Shepard working with Cerberus - and a lot of players hated on the VS for expressing them.
 

Or Shepard should be upset that he/she missed two years and has lost touch with friends and allies.

Shepard has multiple opportunities to inquire about old friends / allies, and to eventually get in touch with them.
 

Or simply glad to be alive. Or curious about he technology used. Or p*ssed at the Collectors. Or Stunned at the implications of Cerberus having this level of tech. But we got nothing in ME2. ANd ME3 gave us a single instance of being able to essentially say "I'm sad" or "I'm p*ssed" That to me isn't good role-play.

What is it you want? Some stream-of-conscious monologue that a lot of players would not agree with or want to see in their gaming?

[Natureguy85]

That's actually what role-playing is all about. The point is to put yourself in the shoes of the character who exists in this world and is going through this sequence of events. It's something I've been doing since my character was a voiceless, expressionless sprite on a screen.

Are we to believe that Shepard has no thoughts, feelings, or motives when she is, for example, walking to the bridge to converse with Joker? Or waiting behind cover for the next wave of enemies?

 

And role-playing is better when I can actually express the thoughts and feelings of a character, rather than just having them in my head and the world around me pretending they don't exist. Should they remove all of the character dialogue too since you can just pretend you're best friends with Garrus and in a relationship with Liara? You had to do that when your character was a voiceless, expressionless sprite on the screen, but it is not the case here. This is a game with dialogue and a dialogue wheel, allowing you to express thoughts or feelings. The orders to the 5th fleet at the end of Mass Effect and telling Mordin what to do with Maelon's data in ME2 were awesome because they took a binary choice and allowed you to express some motivation. In the first, you could tell the fleet to ignore the Destiny Ascension for either practical or spiteful reasons. In the second, you could express two different reasonings for each choice. Lair of the Shadow Broker actually allowed Shepard to express some thoughts and feelings at the end.

 

I'd hope Shepard's mind is on the battle when waiting for the next waves of enemies (unless he isn't loyal yet, of course), but sure, there is some room to imagine things onto the character. However, the death of that character is not one of those things unless the game simply doesn't allow you or the character to express anything, like in Chrono Trigger for example. Also remember that the other problem is that the rest of the universe barely cares either, where in the aforementioned Chrono Trigger, we get the characters to react to both the death and resurrection.

 

 

 

I don't ask game devs for "proper story telling" (whatever that is).

 

Which is how we get plots like ME2's and endings like ME3's.

 

 

 

I don't deny that Shepard is more Bioware's character than mine - and has been since ME1. She is, however, the character I'm given to play.

 

That's true of every game, no matter how much or little you're allowed to characterize the character. What's your point?

 

 

 

There's no inconsistency. People don't always express every thought or feeling they might have. In fact, I'd say that very few of them are ever overtly expressed. All I ask for / expect from RPG writers is that they avoid actively denying the motives of my character.

 

And yet the game allows you to express what you think of the new Normandy, Cerberus, the Genophage, the Geth, ect. But not the single most significant thing to happen to the character; death and resurrection.

 

 

The character finally had an opportunity to see some behind-the-scenes videos that allowed some vague feelings and suspicions that had been bubbling under the surface for a long time to come up for expression. It was the right time and place, and she was with the right people to express them. Which, btw, is also a key feature of good storytelling.

 

Yeah, and those videos and that conversation were a game late. It wasn't the right time and place at all. In fact, it's pretty irrelevant to what they are there to do. As for the right people, I guess it's a good thing you picked the right one squadmate to bring along since you're forced to have EDI. Why not surrounded by my full team or at least my favorites?

 

 

The scientific curiosity really couldn't be addressed, since it was all space magic - which is apparently acceptable to NPCs in MEU. Philosophical / religious stuff usually isn't addressed much in these games, either, since people have some very deeply held beliefs about all of that.

 

"Space Magic" being the answer doesn't preclude the characters from asking questions or discussing it. As for Philosophical and religious implications, your excuse is invalidated by these very games bringing up those issues. Ashley discusses her faith in Mass Effect, again allowing Shepard to express an opinion on something less important than their own death and resurrection, and Mordin discusses philosophy and religion both on his loyalty mission and in relation to the Collectors. Thane also jumps into philosophy/religion.

 

 

 

How would you have them deal with questions nobody had the answer to or wanted to deal with?

The VS had a lot of questions and issues with Shepard working with Cerberus - and a lot of players hated on the VS for expressing them.

 

Sometimes simply asking the questions is enough because it shows us that the characters are at least thinking about these issues. As for the VS, the problem wasn't that they asked questions, it was that Shepard didn't explain everything he/she knew regarding their death, the nature of their relationship with Cerberus, and the threat facing them. The other issue was that the VS really wasn't interested in listening if Shepard did talk about those things.

 

 

Shepard has multiple opportunities to inquire about old friends / allies, and to eventually get in touch with them.

 

When? Shepard asks TIM about the old crew once at the beginning and says "ok" when TIM says they are unavailable.

 

 

 

What is it you want? Some stream-of-conscious monologue that a lot of players would not agree with or want to see in their gaming?

 

More opportunities to discuss issues and express opinions with other characters. I've already listed several less important issues where the games allow for this.

[Pasquale1234]

And role-playing is better when I can actually express the thoughts and feelings of a character, rather than just having them in my head and the world around me pretending they don't exist.

Matter of opinion. I like playing characters who keep their own counsel about their deepest held feelings and beliefs - especially since I don't expect writers and animators to adequately present the variety that different characters might hold.

I also know that just because a fictional character - or actual person in real life - isn't emoting does not mean they are empty.
 

Should they remove all of the character dialogue too since you can just pretend you're best friends with Garrus and in a relationship with Liara?

I could, as long as the writers don't actively deny it. I can also imagine that fictional characters eat, shower, crap, fill out reports, and have sex more than once per game - even though the game doesn't show any of it.
 

This is a game with dialogue and a dialogue wheel, allowing you to express thoughts or feelings.

Some. Not all.
 

I'd hope Shepard's mind is on the battle when waiting for the next waves of enemies (unless he isn't loyal yet, of course), but sure, there is some room to imagine things onto the character.

I'm not sure where loyalty of the protag comes into play.

"Mind is on the battle" can take many forms. Shepard might be thinking about how many more might be coming, where they'll come from, whether the crew is optimally positioned for the onslaught, which weapons and ammo loads to use - and a whole lot of other things. She might be feeling apprehensive, confident, worried about how squadmates will react or fare. Etc.
 

That's true of every game, no matter how much or little you're allowed to characterize the character. What's your point?

What was yours?
 

And yet the game allows you to express what you think of the new Normandy, Cerberus, the Genophage, the Geth, ect. But not the single most significant thing to happen to the character; death and resurrection.

Most of the opinions Shepard can express are very superficial. Death and resurrection are far more complex and would delve deeply into a character's most strongly held and cherished beliefs - and that's assuming the character was 1- willing to talk about them, and 2- had an audience with whom she was willing to talk about them.
 

Yeah, and those videos and that conversation were a game late. It wasn't the right time and place at all.

The writers disagree with you.
 

"Space Magic" being the answer doesn't preclude the characters from asking questions or discussing it.

Just how would those conversations go?
Q: How did they bring you back to life?
A: Space magic.
or, maybe
A: I don't know. Miranda killed the doctor, and Cerberus doesn't share tech.
 

As for Philosophical and religious implications, your excuse is invalidated by these very games bringing up those issues. Ashley discusses her faith in Mass Effect, again allowing Shepard to express an opinion on something less important than their own death and resurrection, and Mordin discusses philosophy and religion both on his loyalty mission and in relation to the Collectors. Thane also jumps into philosophy/religion.

Those things are NPCs philosophies and beliefs, not Shepard's. Any opinion or feedback Shepard expresses is superficial at best.
 

When? Shepard asks TIM about the old crew once at the beginning and says "ok" when TIM says they are unavailable.

Shepard can ask Jacob and Joker about the old crew.

In any case, I'm probably finished with this discussion. I don't expect anything useful or enlightening will come of it.

[Drone223]

No, the Lazarus project along with synthesis is nothing but bad writing. Having Shepard in a coma for 2 years would've achieved the exact same thing as the Lazarus project and would've been more believable.

[aoibhealfae]

Wasn't Kelly being super-nice with you because she want access to your private cabin and to spy on you? Her only function is to give you back your fishes but she always kill herself whenever I get pissed about her stupidity. Figures.

[Iakus]

 
The scientific curiosity really couldn't be addressed, since it was all space magic - which is apparently acceptable to NPCs in MEU. Philosophical / religious stuff usually isn't addressed much in these games, either, since people have some very deeply held beliefs about all of that.
 

I don't disagree that it would have been better to avoid the whole issue entirely by NOT KILLING SHEPARD IN THE FIRST PLACE!  In the entire trilogy, it is the second dumbest thing I think they did.

 

But if you are going to tackle such a weighty topic, they should be prepared to handle it with the gravity it deserves

 

 

 

How would you have them deal with questions nobody had the answer to or wanted to deal with?

 

 

By posing them, and letting SHepard express how he/she feels.  DAI actually does a passable job at it when dealing with the whole "Herald of Andraste" thing

 

 

 

The VS had a lot of questions and issues with Shepard working with Cerberus - and a lot of players hated on the VS for expressing them.
 

Actually the VS leaps to an erroneous conclusion, and Shepard gets zero opportunity to correct those assumptions, or explain in a coherent manner what's going on.

 

SHepard:  Ash!  THank God you're okay!  Listen, the aliens abducting colonists are called Collectors.  Here's everything we've learned about them, including a counter to their seeker swarms.  Find, Tali, she can verif-

Bioware: Assuming direct control

Shepard:  HEy Ah, long time no see.  Wanna join Cerberus?  It'll be just like old times

 

 

 

Shepard has multiple opportunities to inquire about old friends / allies, and to eventually get in touch with them.
 

 

Multiple?  Not really.  

 

 

What is it you want? Some stream-of-conscious monologue that a lot of players would not agree with or want to see in their gaming?

Options.  I want options

 

 

Not

 

[Drone223]

But if you are going to tackle such a weighty topic, they should be prepared to handle it with the gravity it deserves

Indeed, Bioware tried to do something with the terminals in Cronos station but they were obviously made as an afterthought which is also rather insulting. Exploring the concept of death/resurrection should never be treated as an afterthought.

[Natureguy85]

Matter of opinion. I like playing characters who keep their own counsel about their deepest held feelings and beliefs - especially since I don't expect writers and animators to adequately present the variety that different characters might hold.

 

That's perfectly fine. Some games do that well, like Half-Life, but that's not a game built on dialogue. Mass Effect is. And true, it might be annoying if a valid emotional state or reasoning is not included in the list of options. However, in this type of game, something is better than nothing, especially when they allow us to do it on less important topics.

 

 

 

I also know that just because a fictional character - or actual person in real life - isn't emoting does not mean they are empty.

 

This is a bad point, just like "random things can happen in real life." It's not untrue, but it makes for a boring story. Shepard keeping all those thoughts bottled up is very dull. It's equally valid for you to view him as hiding his emotions perfectly or not having any because you can't tell the difference.

 

 

 

 I could, as long as the writers don't actively deny it. I can also imagine that fictional characters eat, shower, crap, fill out reports, and have sex more than once per game - even though the game doesn't show any of it.
 

Some. Not all.

 

Basic biological functions and mundane tasks can be assumed by the setting and the fact that the characters are normal people (or aliens with similar biology to an extent). They have nothing to do with characterization. However coming back from the dead is not normal. These things are not on the same level. Again, this is the most significant thing to happen to this character.

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure where loyalty of the protag comes into play.

 

It was a joke on the weird "loyalty" mechanic from ME2.Most of the missions had nothing to do with loyalty, but rather cleaning up some supposed distraction.

 

 

 

"Mind is on the battle" can take many forms. Shepard might be thinking about how many more might be coming, where they'll come from, whether the crew is optimally positioned for the onslaught, which weapons and ammo loads to use - and a whole lot of other things. She might be feeling apprehensive, confident, worried about how squadmates will react or fare. Etc.

 

And it would be fine for the game to allow some dialogue in those situations. That it doesn't is more for gameplay because those sections are about shootin' dudes.

 

 

 

What was yours?

 

Nice dodge. The point was that the fact that you are given a character to play doesn't mean you define any certain amount of that character's personality. That varies from game to game.

 

 

 

Most of the opinions Shepard can express are very superficial. Death and resurrection are far more complex and would delve deeply into a character's most strongly held and cherished beliefs - and that's assuming the character was 1- willing to talk about them, and 2- had an audience with whom she was willing to talk about them.

 

Yes, that's true, but so what. They either could have decided that for us, which I can't blame you for not wanting, or they could have given us options. The conversation with Liara after Lair of the Shadow Broker or when she presents her special project are great examples of this.

 

So Shepard can't talk about it with the people involved, the psychiatrist on-board, or close friends from his old team in ME2, but is ok with the AI in a body and whoever you just so happen to have picked to come along on the Cerberus base? I guess so. This is just a handwave by you and not a very good one.

 

 

 

The writers disagree with you.

 

The writers also killed Shepard, destroyed the Normandy, gave both back immediately thus destroying all the drama they had built over them, wrote the plot for ME2, and wrote the ending of ME3. Just throw this on the pile of mistakes.

[Natureguy85]

Just how would those conversations go?
Q: How did they bring you back to life?
A: Space magic.
or, maybe
A: I don't know. Miranda killed the doctor, and Cerberus doesn't share tech.

 

Once again, the answer isn't all that important. What matters is that the questions are raised to show the characters even care. I'm not sure how to make this clearer. Shepard does at least ask Jacob about it, which is a good start. Jacob's answer makes him sound like an idiot but, well, who cares about Jacob? Then it never comes up again so we realize that Jacob's "ask the scientists" answer was really the writer telling us to not think about it. Shepard never asks Miranda or TIM about it or asks to see data or reports that were sent to TIM. Jack is somehow able to get files on a project from when she was a child, so why can't Shepard do the same for Project Lazarus?

 

Now, a good answer would help with the believability of how they resurrected Shepard after he went through atmospheric reentry and, after his body miraculously survived that, slammed into a planet, but that is a separate issue from the characterization we are discussing.

 

 

Those things are NPCs philosophies and beliefs, not Shepard's. Any opinion or feedback Shepard expresses is superficial at best.

 

So? It's still good. You're the guy who wants to define things about the character and now you're poo-pooing when the game gives you that ability. Your claim was that they didn't even want to raise the issues at all.

 

 

 

Shepard can ask Jacob and Joker about the old crew.

 

Jacob just tells you they lived. What does Joker say? I don't recall.

 

 

 

 

In any case, I'm probably finished with this discussion. I don't expect anything useful or enlightening will come of it.

 

True, you've made it clear that good writing isn't a priority for you, which is perfectly fine. You like what you like.

[ThomasBlaine]

Well there is a serious question of how much Mass Effect is an RPG vs a 3rd person cover-based shooter with RPG elements. Either way, Shepard is a more defined character than, for example, Revan, the Jedi Exile, or the Warden. Those characters were much more of a blank slate for the player to shape.

 

This is not some minor thing. Shepard died. He was dead for two years. That's a big deal and should have been a major plot point rather than an excuse for a reset and a time jump. Even if you imagine that it makes sense for Shepard to hide it, that doesn't mean he will be able to. It also doesn't mean that it shouldn't affect other characters. Yet only Tali reacts in a manner that fits with the fact that Shepard died. Garrus, Ashley/Kaidan, Liara, Wrex, Anderson, and the general public react like they simply haven't seen him in awhile. Zaeed says Shepard survived, which we know isn't true.

 

If Shepard is struggling with issues due to being dead and brought back to life, why would this not be included in gameplay, at least when nobody is looking?

 

You've just given Miranda the definition of a handwave. It was extremely nonsensical to have no scene discussing Shepard's death. This should have been a huge deal to this character and he acts like nothing happened. This could tie well into the ME3 idea of Shepard's mind breaking, causing him to imagine and dream about a little boy.

 

Uhm, no, the Mass Effect games are definitely roleplaying games. There's no question about it. If you want to perceive them as "shooters with rpg-elements" then that's your business, but they're rpgs in every possible sense. And I'm not "hand-waving" Miranda, it would be entirely out-of-character for her to discuss or tell Shepard anything that might risk unbalancing him/her on that level while looking for the Collectors no matter how much she comes to trust the good Commander. And Shepard would be perfectly aware of that.

 

Look, nobody is disagreeing with you. We all realize that Shepard's "death" was vastly underplayed, that it was a huge missed opportunity for drama and characterization and that it would have been much cooler for the developers to handle it with more balls. But that's the game. It's not perfect, and they gave little tidbits in the sequel, so you find ways to cope. And expanding on the actual writing with your own headcanon is called roleplaying, which, surprise, is a perfectly acceptable way to play roleplaying games, and it's not at all the same thing as not appreciating good writing. Obviously.

[Natureguy85]

Uhm, no, the Mass Effect games are definitely roleplaying games. There's no question about it. If you want to perceive them as "shooters with rpg-elements" then that's your business, but they're rpgs in every possible sense. And I'm not "hand-waving" Miranda, it would be entirely out-of-character for her to discuss or tell Shepard anything that might risk unbalancing him/her on that level while looking for the Collectors no matter how much she comes to trust the good Commander. And Shepard would be perfectly aware of that.

 

Look, nobody is disagreeing with you. We all realize that Shepard's "death" was vastly underplayed, that it was a huge missed opportunity for drama and characterization and that it would have been much cooler for the developers to handle it with more balls. But that's the game. It's not perfect, and they gave little tidbits in the sequel, so you find ways to cope. And expanding on the actual writing with your own headcanon is called roleplaying, which, surprise, is a perfectly acceptable way to play roleplaying games, and it's not at all the same thing as not appreciating good writing. Obviously.

 

Ok. well I guess I just imagined all those complaints about ME2 and ME3 dropping RPG elements for more focus on action. Anyway, that wasn't important to the point.

 

Based on what is it out of character for Miranda to discuss the Lazarus project with Shepard, particularly when seeing that having been dead doesn't imbalance him? She is perfectly fine with discussing the "control chip" idea. Considering the Lazarus project was Shepard specific, she isn't exposing some special technology Cerberus has generally. And even if Shepard were perfectly aware that she wouldn't want to talk about it, why is that acceptable, especially considering all the other options to remind her that he is in charge? Remember, Jack is somehow able to get files on herself and Pragia. Why not get Tali to hack something or see if Liara can dig anything up?

 

You claim you don't disagree with me and that Shepard's death was vastly underplayed, but this is after you and Pasquale have been excusing that very thing at every turn. Roleplaying is fine to fill in unimportant gaps, but it's not my job to fix writing mistakes. That makes some sense while you're playing to try and salvage your immersion, but we're sitting back and discussing the game from a distance where that isn't necessary.

[ThomasBlaine]

Ok. well I guess I just imagined all those complaints about ME2 and ME3 dropping RPG elements for more focus on action. Anyway, that wasn't important to the point.

 

Based on what is it out of character for Miranda to discuss the Lazarus project with Shepard, particularly when seeing that having been dead doesn't imbalance him? She is perfectly fine with discussing the "control chip" idea. Considering the Lazarus project was Shepard specific, she isn't exposing some special technology Cerberus has generally. And even if Shepard were perfectly aware that she wouldn't want to talk about it, why is that acceptable, especially considering all the other options to remind her that he is in charge? Remember, Jack is somehow able to get files on herself and Pragia. Why not get Tali to hack something or see if Liara can dig anything up?

 

You claim you don't disagree with me and that Shepard's death was vastly underplayed, but this is after you and Pasquale have been excusing that very thing at every turn. Roleplaying is fine to fill in unimportant gaps, but it's not my job to fix writing mistakes. That makes some sense while you're playing to try and salvage your immersion, but we're sitting back and discussing the game from a distance where that isn't necessary.

 

Dropping one or two minor features over the course of three games doesn't change a game series' definitive genre, regardless of outrage.

 

The control chip thing was fine to talk about because it was completely irrelevant except as a gesture of personal trust and apology. "We considered putting you under mind control but luckily didn't, and now I'm really sorry." is nowhere near as dangerous a thing to tell the person you're putting in charge of saving the galaxy, or at least humanity, as "Okay, we didn't just fix you up. You were very, very dead, and now let me tell you about all the strange and unnatural things we did to get you up and moving again, most of which you won't fully understand and some of which probably have very dark implications about your current state of existence. But try not to worry about whether or not you're actually alive right now. Seriously, don't let it distract you."

 

Miranda simply wouldn't have that conversation just to satisfy Shepard's curiosity except if it was to lie her ass off about everything being perfectly fine and Shepard not having anything to worry about. She values his/her sanity too much on a practical level. And again, what would Shepard hope to accomplish by forcing the issue?

 

Pasquale and I haven't "excused" anything, we've given our reasons for why the lack of content dealing directly with Shepard's death doesn't ruin the games for us. A lot of the things you're suggesting they could have implemented sound like they would have filled the gab nicely and made the games even better, and things like them were probably lost in development for one stupid reason or another, but it's not such a huge gab that we at least can't play around it.

 

If you were "discussing the game from a distance" then you'd have been fine noting that the lack of play around Shepard's resurrection is one of the things that pull the series down a bit, something we'd all agree on, and leaving it at that. Instead you're moaning about how it's broken your immersion - although obviously not enough not to finish the series several times over like the rest of us -, how the writers weren't doing their jobs covering every base you happen to care about right now and how the rest of us are tasteless and covering for a bad job simply for disagreeing with you and telling you why.

 

Obviously, immersion in and enjoyment of the Mass Effect franchise is an ongoing thing for you like it is for us, and you simply don't get to spoil other people's fun just because you're feeling a little dissatisfied and self-righteous. We just so happen to be adults capable of deciding for ourselves what is and isn't a problem for our entertainment.

[Iakus]

Dropping one or two minor features over the course of three games doesn't change a game series' definitive genre, regardless of outrage.

 

Mass Effect didn't just drop "one or two minor features"  It stripped them down and left what was left resting on cinder blocks.  But the whole being dead thing aside, that's a topic for another thread.

[JohnDoe60]

I think some of you are taking the name, Lazarus Project, way too literally.

 

Shepard obviously didn't die at the start of ME2 because there is no coming back from death - left for dead, ya, but not actually dead. What happened to Shepard was an extreme example of the phenomena that can happen to someone who drowns in icy water... they are not dead until they are warm and dead. Cerberus had the skill to maintain whatever tiny spark of life was left until they could repair the damage. A marvelous feat, but no more miraculous than reviving someone whose heart and breathing have stopped. Primitive cultures may claim it was a miracle, but those portrayed in ME are far from primitive so it is not surprising no one makes a big deal about it.

 

The only thing we game players can take away from the fact that no big deal is made of Sherard's return is that it is not important to the story. It is just a way for Bioware to get the player emotionally involved, and makes for a great opening scene.

[Natureguy85]

 

The control chip thing was fine to talk about because it was completely irrelevant except as a gesture of personal trust and apology. "We considered putting you under mind control but luckily didn't, and now I'm really sorry." is nowhere near as dangerous a thing to tell the person you're putting in charge of saving the galaxy, or at least humanity, as "Okay, we didn't just fix you up. You were very, very dead, and now let me tell you about all the strange and unnatural things we did to get you up and moving again, most of which you won't fully understand and some of which probably have very dark implications about your current state of existence. But try not to worry about whether or not you're actually alive right now. Seriously, don't let it distract you."

 

Which would have made Mass Effect 2 a lot more interesting. Instead, we got a stupid plot with characters behaving stupidly that didn't advance the overall Reaper plot in the least bit. The character stories were all more interesting and better written than the main plot. This would have been Shepard's arc.

 

Maybe that's the problem we're having; you're trying to fit this conversation into Mass Effect 2's mindless plot, where as I am trying to focus on the characters, since they were the redeeming things in the game.

 

 

Miranda simply wouldn't have that conversation just to satisfy Shepard's curiosity except if it was to lie her ass off about everything being perfectly fine and Shepard not having anything to worry about. She values his/her sanity too much on a practical level. And again, what would Shepard hope to accomplish by forcing the issue?

 

Ok, I see your point on Miranda wanting to keep him focused, and I'm not sure if that's harmed or strengthened by her (and everyone else) having her own distraction that keeps her from being focused on the mission.

 

What Shepard would accomplish is seeming more like a real person to the player. Real people have more trouble dealing with serious injuries and traumas than Shepard has with being dead.

 

 

Pasquale and I haven't "excused" anything, we've given our reasons for why the lack of content dealing directly with Shepard's death doesn't ruin the games for us.

 

That is the definition of "excuse". (As in x-yooz, not x-yoos) "to regard or judge with forgiveness or indulgence; pardon or forgive; overlook"

 

Which makes me realize that I used the incorrect word because the problem is not that you've been excusing it, but have been attempting to justify it. Excusing would be what you said here; acknowledging the problem and saying it isn't a big deal for you personally. And that's personal taste.

 

 

If you were "discussing the game from a distance" then you'd have been fine noting that the lack of play around Shepard's resurrection is one of the things that pull the series down a bit, something we'd all agree on, and leaving it at that. Instead you're moaning about how it's broken your immersion - although obviously not enough not to finish the series several times over like the rest of us -, how the writers weren't doing their jobs covering every base you happen to care about right now and how the rest of us are tasteless and covering for a bad job simply for disagreeing with you and telling you why.

 

Obviously, immersion in and enjoyment of the Mass Effect franchise is an ongoing thing for you like it is for us, and you simply don't get to spoil other people's fun just because you're feeling a little dissatisfied and self-righteous. We just so happen to be adults capable of deciding for ourselves what is and isn't a problem for our entertainment.

 

Subjective enjoyment of something that is objectively bad is fine. I enjoy several terrible movies, for example. However telling me that they are objectively good is something else entirely. As for playing ME2 multiple times, that's because the characters are so damn good that it's worth stomaching the stupid plot. And I do enjoy the gameplay as well.

[Natureguy85]

I think some of you are taking the name, Lazarus Project, way too literally.

 

Shepard obviously didn't die at the start of ME2 because there is no coming back from death - left for dead, ya, but not actually dead. What happened to Shepard was an extreme example of the phenomena that can happen to someone who drowns in icy water... they are not dead until they are warm and dead. Cerberus had the skill to maintain whatever tiny spark of life was left until they could repair the damage. A marvelous feat, but no more miraculous than reviving someone whose heart and breathing have stopped. Primitive cultures may claim it was a miracle, but those portrayed in ME are far from primitive so it is not surprising no one makes a big deal about it.

 

The only thing we game players can take away from the fact that no big deal is made of Sherard's return is that it is not important to the story. It is just a way for Bioware to get the player emotionally involved, and makes for a great opening scene.

 

Actually, if you want to get that scientific about it, people come back from technical, medical death all the time. But I know what you mean, so I'm just being silly here.

 

Anyway, you're wrong. The cutscene shows that Shepard's heart stopped beating entirely and either dried up or hardened. Shepard's blood not only stopped flowing, but the cells became encrusted to the sides of the blood vessels. The video in ME3 has the technician tell TIM that Shepard is "brain dead." This is ignoring the atmospheric reentry and slamming into a planet, by the way. Shepard died.

 

There is something called Lazarus Syndrome, but those people revived shortly after being declared dead. With all that happened before Shepard even started to be revived, even only counting what Liara tells us and ignoring what the books explain since they are not in the game, the extreme hypothermia idea doesn't work here.

 

As for your last paragraph, that's why it's such a failure. Without making it matter to the story, it's just melodrama and players notice that it was just a way to get them emotionally involved. And personally, the opening scene worked. However all of that emotional involvement was destroyed by Shepard's immediate return (the same is true of the Normandy) and by Shepard and everyone but Tali barely noticing.

[ThomasBlaine]

Which would have made Mass Effect 2 a lot more interesting. Instead, we got a stupid plot with characters behaving stupidly that didn't advance the overall Reaper plot in the least bit. The character stories were all more interesting and better written than the main plot. This would have been Shepard's arc.

 

Maybe that's the problem we're having; you're trying to fit this conversation into Mass Effect 2's mindless plot, where as I am trying to focus on the characters, since they were the redeeming things in the game.

 

 

 

Ok, I see your point on Miranda wanting to keep him focused, and I'm not sure if that's harmed or strengthened by her (and everyone else) having her own distraction that keeps her from being focused on the mission.

 

What Shepard would accomplish is seeming more like a real person to the player. Real people have more trouble dealing with serious injuries and traumas than Shepard has with being dead.

 

 

 

That is the definition of "excuse". (As in x-yooz, not x-yoos) "to regard or judge with forgiveness or indulgence; pardon or forgive; overlook"

 

Which makes me realize that I used the incorrect word because the problem is not that you've been excusing it, but have been attempting to justify it. Excusing would be what you said here; acknowledging the problem and saying it isn't a big deal for you personally. And that's personal taste.

 

 

 

Subjective enjoyment of something that is objectively bad is fine. I enjoy several terrible movies, for example. However telling me that they are objectively good is something else entirely. As for playing ME2 multiple times, that's because the characters are so damn good that it's worth stomaching the stupid plot. And I do enjoy the gameplay as well.

 

No, what we've been doing is trying to explain to you why we can live with it and still enjoy the games, not why we think that it isn't an oversight or that it's a justifiable one. It's just not a big deal, and we've figured out ways to play around it. Look, there seem to be some key points you're missing here:

 

1: A game can not be "objectively bad". There can be an overall consensus that it sucks, which isn't the case for any of the Mass Effect games if you haven't noticed, it can be a mixed bag with significant though not necessarily even amounts of players disagreeing on the game's general quality, which also isn't really the case for any Mass Effect games, and there can be a consensus that it's great with some subjective opinions that it or parts of it suck, which is apparently the case here.

 

2: You don't have the moral, legal or principle right to demand that a game be exactly the way you want it to be. You just don't. You pay for it, you play it and you can state your opinions afterwards, but the game's developers aren't responsible for catering to your personal taste and making everything absolutely perfect in case something bothers you so much that it ruins the game for you even though everyone else can live with it. They make the game as best they can and want to, and you have zero right to blame them for it. Nobody forced you to play or spend money on Mass Effect, certainly not its writers and certainly not other players who enjoy it more than you did.

 

3: People telling you that what's a big problem for you isn't such a big problem for them is not the same thing as people telling you that that problem is a good thing. Or even irrelevant. Nobody is saying that. Nobody is saying that a scene or two dealing seriously with Shepard's very real death wouldn't have corrected a flaw and made the game better, or that it being glossed over somehow benefits the plot. We're telling you why we can deal with it since you're so insistent on convincing us that we shouldn't be able to. We get it, this relatively minor plot point is something you're really missing in the games. We agree, but don't feel as strongly about it as you do. The games aren't perfect. Deal with it.

 

 

As for your last paragraph, that's why it's such a failure. Without making it matter to the story, it's just melodrama and players notice that it was just a way to get them emotionally involved. And personally, the opening scene worked. However all of that emotional involvement was destroyed by Shepard's immediate return (the same is true of the Normandy) and by Shepard and everyone but Tali barely noticing.

 

To be fair, nobody actually saw him/her die, or even the Normandy's final explosion. Except for Liara, nobody knew for an absolute fact that Shepard hadn't survived somehow, and if you already believe someone capable of the "impossible" it's not inconceivable to accept that person turning out not to be dead after all at face value. Most of them - and those in the rest of the galaxy who even know that much - probably assume that Shepard found some way to protect him/herself after Joker's escape shuttle launched and that Cerberus just managed a last-minute rescue and spent the intervening years treating his/her wounds. It's obviously what Kaiden and Ashley assume. Shepard might even believe that him/herself on some level, as it turns out s/he didn't realize the full extent of his/her wounds until Cronos station in the third game.

 

Again, this is not an excuse or justification, just another way one could think about it to get around the plot hole without blowing a fuse. In case pointless and counterproductive outrage isn't one's thing.

[themikefest]

When Jacob says that Shepard was nothing but meat and tubes, I take that as Shepard being dead.

 

There are a couple of questions I wanted to ask about Shepard's death. But there were other questions I wanted to ask, but wasn't able to because of reasons.

[ThomasBlaine]

When Jacob says that Shepard was nothing but meat and tubes, I take that as Shepard being dead.

 

There are a couple of questions I wanted to ask about Shepard's death. But there were other questions I wanted to ask, but wasn't able to because of reasons.

 

That in and of itself sounds like an exaggeration, not to mention impossible, and Shepard doesn't necessarily trust Jacob. But yeah.