158 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr. rotinaj]

While I agree with you, I don't know if I can criticize Bioware for this. From what I've seen, especially on the BSN, many players prefer their rpgs to be power fantasies. They want to choose consequences and not make choices, they want to be powerful all the time, they want characters to praise them and remind them that they're special. Many hated Hawke for their "powerlessness", people complained about how DAI selects the new Divine based on your choices rather than your input, and there are always a few complaints about how our characters can't always convince NPCs to do something.

 

It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation. Make our character special and they're a Mary Sue, give them flaws and they're useless and irrelevant.

 

That being said,

 

 

Say the goal of Andromeda is to gain resources and colonize humanity and the game-design teaches the player to collect some kind of fuel and kill some bad guys. Completing all these objectives will be gratifying to the player as s/he can feel their character growing and the plot moving along with it, but instead of being told by the NPCs or the world that "It's the pathfinder, he's amazing!" what if people were skeptical of him? What if you're confronted by a squadmate telling you "I think you're obsessed with this, what drives you to do all this?" that would ask the question of who our character is as a human being, and that will only add depth to it and thereby another sense of gratification that feels genuine.

 

 

I love this. When characters ask you questions like this you get a great opportunity to define your character. Tying such conversations to gameplay accomplishments makes your character feel more real. ME3 and DAI had a few moments where characters asked the PC how they felt and I would looove to see more dialogue like that.

[Linkenski]

There were a number of dialogues in the game where one NPC would question what you did and another would support what you did (e.g. end of ME1 was set up such that one of your squad would always be in favor of saving the Destiny Ascension and the other would not)... so, so much for your first point.

 

The issue is that people would only pick based on P/R placement rather than shooting for some of the neutral dialogues which, at times, did show more of the realistic flaws people claim they want to see in their PC.  There was more ability to create a flawed anti-hero within the ME trilogy than most people give it credit for.  Yeah, BioWare could write more of that sort of thing into ME:A and I certainly wouldn't object if they did... but I still think most players wouldn't find it. 

**** what "most players" would find. They have their sensational action-packed, bombastic sci fi plot with alien lovers. If they don't catch the subtext, no damage has been done. In fact, it just means the game has more for everyone if it can manage to be a sci-fi epic with explosions and cool action on the surface but have a deeper story underneath about what it means to be the hero of this story or something or whatever BIoware can cook up. DA:I was a very vague plot for example, but there was moments in it when I understood what the subtext was becuase it was drawing parallels  to religion in RL history in an allegoric sense. Bioware totally knows how to do these things (Mac don't but he's not making the plot, so no worries) but we need some layering to the plot and we need a protagonist who feels like a human being and allies, friends and associates addressing him like human beings or alien beings as well.

 

I desperately wanted to deconstruct ME3 in my head. Shepard was a megalomaniac just as much as TIM in some ways. Moping about losing Thessia, harrassing Joker and constnatly spouting slogans and moralizing -- I got it, he was a leader chosen by the biggest influences in the galaxy to lead them to victory but this made him extremely unlikeable to me becuase he has so much and everyone except his direct enemies were totally okay with it and loved him for this power he had and his self-indulgence in how good he was (and except James who shows he's a man made of the same as Shepard). I hated Shepard in ME3 and I'm not trying to be too principalistic here -- I genuinenly felt annoyed and like I was groaning because something about Shepard kept rubbing me the wrong way. I needed someone in the story to put him in his place or show the negative connotations to Shepard being so important and self-righteous. Not in the "I care for you, you need to rest!" or "I'm worried about you because you're so on edge!" kind of way. I wanted someone to say "Shepard, you're too focused on being the hero and famous than you care for actually saving people. You're a self-absorbed and self-indulgent moron!"

 

I'm not even saying that character would be right to say that, but we get a different perspective and perception of Shepard with that, and the story would've been better for it. It's like in the first Matrix movie where you have that one guy on the good side who betrays Neo because he despises him and doesn't agree with him being either the chosen one or that he should even save them from anything. Even in the Reaper war there should've been someone with a less optimistic mindset or directly confront Shepard about his motivation and goals because they felt different about it.

 

Again, this comes back to the fact that I think Bioware is largely misguided, because they create their protagonists as extensions of the player and they want the player to be the most important and validated entity in their story, to a fault.

 

We need a better protagonist in ME:A one way or the other.

[Daemul]

This has always been my problem with Bioware games. 

 

I have no problem with video games being power fantasies, hell every video game is essentially a power fantasy by default since your character is always a grade A badass, but the issue is Bioware takes that and runs with it to the extreme. 

 

In most games, western ones at least, you're basically playing a Garrus/Vega like character, a wise cracking or brooding in some cases, bro-like character with massive faults that make him relatable to the average player and who you could easily see yourself having a drink with, whilst in Bioware games you're essentially playing a messiah like figure who can do no wrong and is deciding the fates of entire species (seriously wtf?!) and has everyone pushing each other out of the way to suck his dick and tell him how awesome he is and how NOBODY else in a galaxy of TRILLIONS could do what he does and how everything would been lost without him. NOBODY else. In a Galaxy of TRILLIONS. 

 

It's absolutely ridiculous and comes across as borderline insulting at times. 

[Mistic]

Truly, there are too many occasions in which the PC seems bigger than life itself. A blatant Gary-Stu/Mary-Sue. But I guess it's part of the appeal, the fantasizing.

 

Still, I don't think it should be difficult to make the PC more human without forcing the player's failure (that's a very big difference, otherwise we can have the same railroading problem as in several instances of ME3).

 

I Remember Me is a good example. Provide quests in which you do some good, but you can't just fix a person's life. Or little details that don't affect gameplay. I liked it when the squadmates mentioned Shepard's infamy as the worst driver in the galaxy. Or at the party in the Citadel DLC, when they made fun of Shepard's dancing skills. Or when there was the option to let Garrus win at the shooting contest.

[Iakus]

This has always been my problem with Bioware games. 

 

I have no problem with video games being power fantasies, hell every video game is essentially a power fantasy by default since your character is always a grade A badass, but the issue is Bioware takes that and runs with it to the extreme. 

 

In most games, western ones at least, you're basically playing a Garrus/Vega like character, a wise cracking or brooding in some cases, bro-like character with massive faults that make him relatable to the average player and who you could easily see yourself having a drink with, whilst in Bioware games you're essentially playing a messiah like figure who can do no wrong and is deciding the fates of entire species (seriously wtf?!) and has everyone pushing each other out of the way to suck his dick and tell him how awesome he is and how NOBODY else in a galaxy of TRILLIONS could do what he does and how everything would been lost without him. NOBODY else. In a Galaxy of TRILLIONS. 

 

It's absolutely ridiculous and comes across as borderline insulting at times. 

This is why I say there is nothing wrong with smaller, more personal stories (like DA2) they're actually easier to make believable.  You're not deciding the fate of a galaxy, a world, or even a nation.  Just your own fate, or those near you.  Even a city is much harder to swallow.  It's just a matter of making the game feel personal, like your choice did make a difference, and in a way that makes sense.

 

Heck look at Telltale's Walking Dead game.  The player, as Lee, is not trying to stop the zombie apocalypse, or rebuild civilization, or kill every bandit he comes across.  The goal is simply to keep Clementine safe.  One little girl

[Gwydden]

The hero is automatically going to be the best, and most successful person in the game. This is unavoidable, because you are capable of murdering every single obstacle in your path. The only way to disarm you is to either prevent you from murdering people if they get in your way (ala Kai Leng, and we know how that one goes over) or make it so that murdering people doesn't get you your way (ala DA2, and we have seen how that one goes too).

A game like the Witcher also makes Geralt the same invincible Ubermensch. It's not a Bioware trope. It's an RPG one. In fact, the Witcher is probably a worse offender in terms of making their protagonist so far beyond the rules of the world that they're in a class of their own, but so much better at hiding how they've made their protagonist an ubermensch (because people are mean to you sometimes, before you can tell them to **** off).

I think that misses the point. The problem is not that Shepard or any other Bioware protagonist is an impossibly badass character (although I'd argue TW still gives a better explanation for that than ME, Geralt having rare superpowers and all). That's inevitable in a game that's all about killing things.

The problem is that Shepard (to go with the most egregious and relevant example) is almost literally worshiped by everyone who's not stupid or evil. That he, a lowly soldier, gets handed galaxy changing decisions 24/7 for no good reason. That he's rarely if ever wrong. That his crew is made up of suck ups who constantly tell him how special and so much better than everyone else he is, who run over each other to let him determine every aspect of their lives and who never say no to him. That he can constantly challenge his superiors and always get away with it. That he's the Chosen One for no other reason than he's Just That Great.

That's really what I love about Geralt. He's a nobody. He has a crappy, thankless job. People in power use him while looking down on him. His loved ones have lives of their own and the best they have to say about him most of the time is that he's an okay guy. He gets criticized for his flaws, and people don't fall at his feet no matter what. And he's rarely if ever allowed to make decisions way above his pay grade without a damn good reason.

Hell, in TW2, I love how he determines the outcome of a battle not because he's a badass fighter or great military commander (which he isn't; he also has the virtue of not being excellent at everything) but indirectly and because he was in the right place at the right time.

[straykat]

I didn't even the read the OP..

 

And I feel bad about that.

 

 

But whatever it is, I probably agree.

 

That said, Mass Effect tried to avoid it a little... and people lashed out. That''s why DAI is what it is.. It's pure "hero experience". The setup for it could been a lot more intriguing and politically muddy (as Inquisitions tend to be), but it's generic as hell.

[SKAR]

I think that misses the point. The problem is not that Shepard or any other Bioware protagonist is an impossibly badass character (although I'd argue TW still gives a better explanation for that than ME, Geralt having rare superpowers and all). That's inevitable in a game that's all about killing things.

The problem is that Shepard (to go with the most egregious and relevant example) is almost literally worshiped by everyone who's not stupid or evil. That he, a lowly soldier, gets handed galaxy changing decisions 24/7 for no good reason. That he's rarely if ever wrong. That his crew is made up of suck ups who constantly tell him how special and so much better than everyone else he is, who run over each other to let him determine every aspect of their lives and who never say no to him. That he can constantly challenge his superiors and always get away with it. That he's the Chosen One for no other reason than he's Just That Great.

That's really what I love about Geralt. He's a nobody. He has a crappy, thankless job. People in power use him while looking down on him. His loved ones have lives of their own and the best they have to say about him most of the time is that he's an okay guy. He gets criticized for his flaws, and people don't fall at his feet no matter what. And he's rarely if ever allowed to make decisions way above his pay grade without a damn good reason.

Hell, in TW2, I love how he determines the outcome of a battle not because he's a badass fighter or great military commander (which he isn't; he also has the virtue of not being excellent at everything) but indirectly and because he was in the right place at the right time.

I agree with some of that. MEA's protag shouldn't be worshipped. There should be those who have doubt. I want his respect earned. Shepard was one type of protag. Now it's time for another.

[straykat]

That's a prob with the companions more than Shep. Like the poster above said, Shep is just a soldier. And he/she knows that too. "I'm just a soldier, Anderson." It's partly the player's fault for reading more into Shepard into that. Especially Paragon Players, I think. lol... seriously.

 

Grunt, Jack, Zaeed are among a few that don't do the worship thing, off the top of my head. They come off more like peers or freak projects to me. Maybe Miranda too, even though she expresses feeling inferior despite her engineering. She still kind of stands on her own though and can be plenty disagreeable.

[wright1978]

I disagree that the character should have forced flaws/forced to do things incorrectly.
I have no issue if choices can end up biting you in the behind later but definitely not a you must do this because we've got a certain view of how good the character is allowed to be.

[Voodoo Dancer]

i wonder what playing the new andromeda shepard would be like if they made the game for the psvr , i know if i was playing geralt in the psvr id probably end up slaughtering everyone if they kept on spitting at me as i was walking by .

[Hazegurl]

I think that most people who complain about Shepard being Gary/Mary Stu/Sue are probably Paragon players because 100% of all companions usually agree and fawn over everything Paragon Shepard does.  Playing Renegade does not give the same experience unless a player is searching for it. Sabotage the Genophage and the only thing you get is a private convo with Garrus in which he admits he would have been tempted to do the same to save his own planet but even then it's filled with uncertainty that he believes that the right call was made.  Let the Quarians die, and you're basically told you're an idiot for choosing the Geth who could get controlled by the Reapers, If you're all gun ho about finding Leviathan, your squad mates express concern, Agree with Javik's line of thinking, and you're pretty much called a callous person by Liara. 

 

IMO, the only Shepard who is allowed to be flawed in any way in ME3 is the Renegade and most players choose not to go that route because they want the circle jerking praise.

 

I wouldn't want to be forced into making dumb choices just so my character can have flaws, I would however like to be out smarted by the enemy, and have some companions just not like how I'm doing things.  This is why I loved the argument between Shep and Kaidan at the start of ME3.  We actually had a character who was consistent in calling Shepard out on his/her actions the way he perceives them to be and he doesn't just roll over and play nice based on Shepard saying some nice paragon words.  Of course if you're too renegade with him, you lose your chance to romance him even if he starts to come around about Cerberus.  Yet most of the fanbase hates him and subsequently Ash.

[SolNebula]

I know one thing....the second BW takes away player agency or make impossibile for us to achieve a truly good outcome to our actions.....people are going to be pissed about it. Regardless how people here claim to desire a edgy and flawed hero at the end they will hate it if BW wanted you to fail a particular mission. Thessia docet.

[Cainhurst Crow]

I think what you described sounds irritating, and unrewarding. Say I go in and help a group of people out. Then, they immediate start hurling insults about how I didn't do a good enough job, and how I should owe them everything I have, and I should be grateful they don't kill me for all the friends they lost before I showed up to help them.

 

Why would I ever help these people again? If when I do, they do the same skeptical "We still think your a **** tier scrub, btw save our lives a dozen more times and maybe we;ll change it to just a scrub."

 

Remember Ashley and Kaiden from ME3? Remember how everyone just loved them questioning their characters motives and actions, and then turning on them and needing to be talked down? Remember how they basically told you to go **** yourself in ME2? And everyone in Me1 and Me2 pretty much spent the game telling you that you were a **** tier spectre and **** tier solider, despite mowing down hordes of them?

 

Yeah. That was a real bad job I did, you know, when me and these 2 other guys killed 134 of your guys back there. I can see why you'd be completely unimpressed by my noob skills.

 

I don't know how to fix the problem of a main character being over powered. In fact, I don't think there is a way to do it that isn't cheap and destroys the experience of a video game. The very nature of the game is to win, and failing to win usually creates a fail state. By its very nature, you need to defeat whatever your up against to complete the game, thereby being a mary sue already through pure destiny of game mechanics. Now, if you fail, and the game goes on, but lets you recover, that's also being a mary sue, because you should be dead. If the game just ends and cuts to credits when you die, how is that fun for anyone? Having to start all the way at the beginning of the game for every death. Even Dark Souls games, games specifically designed to tell you that you suck, and you don't deserve to win, require you to win to advance the game, and thereby make you become a mary sue.

 

I don't pretend to know how to fix the problem. But turning everyone into a bitchy, ungrateful, jerk who belittles you for helping them probably isn't the way to go. And if this isn't what you meant by it, you should really recosnider what you mean by Skeptical. Because right now, all I'm thinking are the most skeptical people I know, that being Youtube comments and ****** civilians in comic books.

 

Also that one ******* on Horizon, who didn't help his friends, didn't help you, and then told you to go **** yourself when the mission was over.

[fraggle]

I don't know, to me only the full Paragon path feels like too much hero and worship. It's why I find it the least interesting. I enjoy giving my characters some flaws and personality traits myself, which I then play out accordingly (sticking to Shepard's mindset instead of playing pure Paragon or Renegade). Seeing my choices and the dialogue then play out left me really content so far.

 

There are plenty of tiny scenes that help with this as well, like Falere telling you you screwed up when Samara died on the Suicide Mission, or if you're more Renegade Samara tells you in ME2 that Shepard should be glad she has sworn an oath to him/her, otherwise... James got mad at me during Leviathan when I kept Ann connected to the orb too long and didn't take care of her afterwards. They are in the game, but you have to be willing to play something else than pure Paragon.

 

For me it also kinda makes sense that people outside Shepard's squad would praise him/her and make him/her out to be a hero. They don't see the path you chose, they don't see the "real" Shepard, the one who may have faked the genophage cure for example. They only see the results and not how you got there, no?

 

However, more people telling you they disagree with you are welcome, but we often got that in missions/banter before as well. Can't hurt though to have even more of this!

[Hammerstorm]

For what I remember, in ME1 almost everybody (except the squad) was angry at my shepard, the council for example denied every evidence of the reaper and only acknowledged that saren was a rouge spectre after I found hard fact. then they tried to control me as a spectre all the time.

 

And in ME3 Javik told me to my face that I was to soft to make the hard choices, VS pointed a gun in my face, James tries to refuse orders.

 

I think that having people disagree with you is ok, but why would a team member that think I am a naive fool/crazy psycho stay with me? if they don't like it, leave or report me to the higher ups.

 

And I like to have fights that in DA:O, when you save the queen. Tough but you can win. and if you lose (like I did the first X times) the story continue just a bit different.

[Linkenski]

This is why I say there is nothing wrong with smaller, more personal stories (like DA2) they're actually easier to make believable.  You're not deciding the fate of a galaxy, a world, or even a nation.  Just your own fate, or those near you.  Even a city is much harder to swallow.  It's just a matter of making the game feel personal, like your choice did make a difference, and in a way that makes sense.

 

Heck look at Telltale's Walking Dead game.  The player, as Lee, is not trying to stop the zombie apocalypse, or rebuild civilization, or kill every bandit he comes across.  The goal is simply to keep Clementine safe.  One little girl

i think it's good you mention DA2 because while it is often regarded as a failure and I understand why Bioware don't wanna take that risk again, if you look aside some problems it kinda had the right idea. It's another case like the Mako in ME1 where it's like "Oh, that didn't work. Let's completely shift gears and not do anything like it again"

 

When really, it was more that the idea was fine, a lot of the story was actually interesting as well as the combat and characters, but the execution was just not 100% good at the end. For example it felt like DA2 could've been a well-done and well-wrapped-up story with a fourth act or a third act that didn't devolve into stupidity after its premise was so interesting. Hell, I loved the overall structure they played with for DA2 of having Varric tell it as a framed narrative and have 3 individual subplots with one per act. It was just too rough around the edges but the idea was really novel and interesting and the game had me hooked, especially from act 2.

 

It was moreso the very unappealing graphics and bad environments that kept the game from pulling people in.

[Linkenski]

For what I remember, in ME1 almost everybody (except the squad) was angry at my shepard, the council for example denied every evidence of the reaper and only acknowledged that saren was a rouge spectre after I found hard fact. then they tried to control me as a spectre all the time.

 

And in ME3 Javik told me to my face that I was to soft to make the hard choices, VS pointed a gun in my face, James tries to refuse orders.

 

I think that having people disagree with you is ok, but why would a team member that think I am a naive fool/crazy psycho stay with me? if they don't like it, leave or report me to the higher ups.

 

And I like to have fights that in DA:O, when you save the queen. Tough but you can win. and if you lose (like I did the first X times) the story continue just a bit different.

These do not make Shepard a flawed character. It's still in the Mary-Sue spectrum where both instances make you side with Shepard. Javik made me think "Javik is a jerk" and VS made me think "VS is not too bright".

 

I'm talking about a genuine flaw where our character is actually in the wrong and when the villain or your companion confronts them with it it makes you go "hey, they're sort of right, our character isn't in the right here".

 

Think of Joel from The Last of Us. The ending was kind of polarizing because some people actually hated Joel for what happens. He's flawed because he's selfish and on the flipside you can still understand where that selfishness comes from because Ellie is like his daughter and he chooses to potentially screw over the future of mankind for his own fatherly love to an adopted daughter even when she tells him she wanted the other outcome.

 

I'm not asking them to rip off TLoU here. I'm saying, some people in the industry has shown you the example. Consider it because you're falling behind when storytelling has met a higher bar that you so far have not even tried to live up to, and people are already beginning to talk about how they're sick of saving the world or being the best of the best and you're losing the audacity to call yourself "the kings of storytelling" by continuing to stick to the same tired old tropes of the old times in gaming.

[Shechinah]

I know one thing....the second BW takes away player agency or make impossibile for us to achieve a truly good outcome to our actions.....people are going to be pissed about it. Regardless how people here claim to desire a edgy and flawed hero at the end they will hate it if BW wanted you to fail a particular mission. Thessia docet.

I do not mind failing or suffering a loss or a setback during a mission. What I mind is how that failure, that loss and that setback comes about, however, since that tends to be the difference between a loss, failure and setback feeling forced and feeling like it was the result of the story's events and characters. In the case of the former, I do not enjoy it and feel it cheapens the story. In the case of the latter, I can enjoy it and feel it adds to the story.

 

The former tends to feature a character's plot armor becoming so obvious it cannot be ignored by the player and the player character's established skills and intelligence being lowered or forgotten because it was necessary for the plot to make the failure possible. If a failure cannot be executed because of the player character's established abilities and intelligence, then the failure needs to happen in a different way or there needs to be a reason as to why the player character's established abilities and intelligence are lowered that goes beyond because the plot needed them to be.

Example: Thane's fight with Kai Leng was fine in theory for me. What made it fail in execution for me and feel forced was how Thane, Shepard and company acted during the scene which seemed at odds with how they should logically had acted given established characterization.

You can have scenes in which the player character and the good guys fail and suffer loss but the good way of doing it is to make it seem like it happened because of characterization, circumstances and similar in-story reasons and not make it seem like it was because the plot demanded it and the writers wanted it.

TL: DR; I think George R. R Martin had the better way of putting it: He didn't want the story to cheat to let the good guys win but he didn't want the story to cheat to let the bad guys win either.

[wright1978]

I'm talking about a genuine flaw where our character is actually in the wrong and when the villain or your companion confronts them with it it makes you go "hey, they're sort of right, our character isn't in the right here".

 

Think of Joel from The Last of Us. The ending was kind of polarizing because some people actually hated Joel for what happens. He's flawed because he's selfish and on the flipside you can still understand where that selfishness comes from because Ellie is like his daughter and he chooses to potentially screw over the future of mankind for his own fatherly love to an adopted daughter even when she tells him she wanted the other outcome.

 

I'm not asking them to rip off TLoU here. I'm saying, some people in the industry has shown you the example. Consider it because you're falling behind when storytelling has met a higher bar that you so far have not even tried to live up to, and people are already beginning to talk about how they're sick of saving the world or being the best of the best and you're losing the audacity to call yourself "the kings of storytelling" by continuing to stick to the same tired old tropes of the old times in gaming.

 

I have no desire for the removal of the player characterised protagonist which seems to be the only way to implement your perceived desire to inflict a character flaw upon everyone.

[Hammerstorm]

These do not make Shepard a flawed character. It's still in the Mary-Sue spectrum where both instances make you side with Shepard. Javik made me think "Javik is a jerk" and VS made me think "VS is not too bright".

 

I'm talking about a genuine flaw where our character is actually in the wrong and when the villain or your companion confronts them with it it makes you go "hey, they're sort of right, our character isn't in the right here".

 

Think of Joel from The Last of Us. The ending was kind of polarizing because some people actually hated Joel for what happens. He's flawed because he's selfish and on the flipside you can still understand where that selfishness comes from because Ellie is like his daughter and he chooses to potentially screw over the future of mankind for his own fatherly love to an adopted daughter even when she tells him she wanted the other outcome.

 

I'm not asking them to rip off TLoU here. I'm saying, some people in the industry has shown you the example. Consider it because you're falling behind when storytelling has met a higher bar that you so far have not even tried to live up to, and people are already beginning to talk about how they're sick of saving the world or being the best of the best and you're losing the audacity to call yourself "the kings of storytelling" by continuing to stick to the same tired old tropes of the old times in gaming.

 

I can see what you are meaning.

I don't have any problem with flaws, as long as I can chose an alternative. I want to have the ability too make a flawless character that is "the best of the best" (or a mary-sue as some put it) as well as to make a character that has flaws.

[von uber]

I think there is a difference between the character becoming personally more powerful (which I think is fine) and their impact on the world becoming powerful.
For example Shep becomes a more powerful soldier overtime but that for some reason translates into power over the existence of entire species.

As an example on Rannoch if you choose the Geth, why doesn't Tali go down fighting? Why does Shep making the decision render everyone else unable to act? Obviously this a ignoring the point as to why shep gets the make the choice in the first place.

[Ahriman]

I think OP mixes player praising and decision making, putting too much emphasis on the first.

For example Hacket, Anderson and Udina all have different relations with Shepard, but for some reason they all start asking his orders on political matters when the time comes. This has nothing to do with player praising or "hero experience", since Udina doesn't change his scepticism on Shepard. Writers just jump over characters and game world to let player decide stuff. When you intervene in Sidonis assasination and get away with it that's "hero experience", when Legion turns around and asks what to do with his own 'people' that's decision gifting from writers.

[In Exile]

I think that misses the point. The problem is not that Shepard or any other Bioware protagonist is an impossibly badass character (although I'd argue TW still gives a better explanation for that than ME, Geralt having rare superpowers and all). That's inevitable in a game that's all about killing things.

The problem is that Shepard (to go with the most egregious and relevant example) is almost literally worshiped by everyone who's not stupid or evil. That he, a lowly soldier, gets handed galaxy changing decisions 24/7 for no good reason. That he's rarely if ever wrong. That his crew is made up of suck ups who constantly tell him how special and so much better than everyone else he is, who run over each other to let him determine every aspect of their lives and who never say no to him. That he can constantly challenge his superiors and always get away with it. That he's the Chosen One for no other reason than he's Just That Great.

That's really what I love about Geralt. He's a nobody. He has a crappy, thankless job. People in power use him while looking down on him. His loved ones have lives of their own and the best they have to say about him most of the time is that he's an okay guy. He gets criticized for his flaws, and people don't fall at his feet no matter what. And he's rarely if ever allowed to make decisions way above his pay grade without a damn good reason.

Hell, in TW2, I love how he determines the outcome of a battle not because he's a badass fighter or great military commander (which he isn't; he also has the virtue of not being excellent at everything) but indirectly and because he was in the right place at the right time.

But that's not true about Geralt. You don't have random shower you with adulation, sure. But all the meaningful characters in the game DO shower you with praise or adulation or they oppose you and you can tell them off and kill them. The people who are mean to you are the unwashed masses - and that's PART of the power fantasy, because Geralt the ubermensch is beyond them. He doesn't care.

Shepard constantly challenges kings and nobles and tells them to **** off with nary a consequence. He might as well tattoo "won't charge me with les majesty" (or however that's spelled) to his ass for when he shows it to a king or noble.

Geralt determined the direction of a battle because he was a badass. It's the same wish fulfilment. It's just dealt with different. Instead of adulation of the masses it's the opportunity to tell them all to **** off because you don't need them.

And Geralt isn't a nobody! He's the white wolf. Kings know who he is - the Emperor of Nilfgaard acknowledges his existence. His ambassadors are keenly are of him. Kings across the Northern Realms hire him. With some he's a beloved figure. Powerful sorcereses desire him.

[In Exile]

These do not make Shepard a flawed character. It's still in the Mary-Sue spectrum where both instances make you side with Shepard. Javik made me think "Javik is a jerk" and VS made me think "VS is not too bright".

I'm talking about a genuine flaw where our character is actually in the wrong and when the villain or your companion confronts them with it it makes you go "hey, they're sort of right, our character isn't in the right here".

Think of Joel from The Last of Us. The ending was kind of polarizing because some people actually hated Joel for what happens. He's flawed because he's selfish and on the flipside you can still understand where that selfishness comes from because Ellie is like his daughter and he chooses to potentially screw over the future of mankind for his own fatherly love to an adopted daughter even when she tells him she wanted the other outcome.

I'm not asking them to rip off TLoU here. I'm saying, some people in the industry has shown you the example. Consider it because you're falling behind when storytelling has met a higher bar that you so far have not even tried to live up to, and people are already beginning to talk about how they're sick of saving the world or being the best of the best and you're losing the audacity to call yourself "the kings of storytelling" by continuing to stick to the same tired old tropes of the old times in gaming.

Shepard attempting genocide once and committing it once sounds like a pretty big character flaw. But in a game with story choice you can't force players into decisions they find repugnant. If TLOU was an RPG we'd have a choice over the end. And then the debate would be other the choice.

Just like how in TW2 people debate the choices, and never Geralt.