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.
Bolded for emphasis
Bolded for emphasis
Let's not go crazy with that one. We did, after all, basically just come out of a game where Bioware forced us to more or less side with the Space Nazis.
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.
Again, nothing is stopping you from choosing the morally right action. All I'm asking for is that the morally right decision shouldn't automatically resonate with all the companions or "good guys". You can save the day and be righteous if you want and have people tell you they think you're wrong as opposed to being amazing and then hearing everyone except the villain go "You're so amazing, I wanna be like you but I can't because you're sooo good!".
Also, for the "bolded for emphasis" part above, the fact that Shepard moralizes and plays righteous no matter what thanks to no neutral option you're actually railroaded into being a flawed character that's wrongly portrayed as amazing.
I think that kinda wrecks the argument. Remember, I don't say Shepard in general was awful -- I specifically point out that I hated him IN ME3 
I think you've spent a bit too much time in the paragon fields op. Try some paragade.
And outside of Conrad Verner, I can't think of anyone who outright praises you unwarrantedly. Wrex does, but that's cause you just saved his species. Same with tali, with the added relationship to the mix. Everyone else just either agrees with what you did, which isn't praise its just agreement, or they don't, which varys from a displeased conversation to attempted murder.
I think you could solve this by not making the fate of whole species something we directly choose, but decided by some form of cumulative action gauge, where if you made enough choices in the game it leads to a good, bad, or neutral outcome. If I did everything to sabotage the krogan in the last game, from killing wrex to stopping the cure to being a general ass to krogans, then no cure should be the outcome regardless. Same for the other way around, though maybe with a confrontation with a saboteur where we stop them or let them go, which would still not determine if tue cure was sabotaged or not.
Basically, don't give the player a direct yes or no question that makes them the decider for all life. That way, if characters berate you all the time, they don't seem ungrateful.
Because if I save your entire race from dying, you better damn well not call me a pathetic welp for it. And if I've done impossible feats and massive success rate, I think it'd be more unrealistic if nobody acknowledged me about it. It's like Fallout, how you can be sporting power armor with a super mutant and a death claw following your orders, and some random crime boss can go "Either you do what I say, or me and my 5 friend's will kill ya." And then they die in like 6 seconds, because they tried to muscle the man with a pet death claw.
Or at the very least have us pick a flaw at the start of the game in the CC, if you're so hung up on having one. Give the player a choice instead of pulling some Virmire crap. Sure, it was cool qnd tragic when it happened. But when you realize you had an entire squad of soliders and all your not used squadmates on call, and you didn't use any of them to help the not-survivor, it kinda makes the whole thing dumb and set up for dramas sake. If you're going to force the player into come consequences, at least make them logical ones where there is no way out of it, from all standpoints.
Again, nothing is stopping you from choosing the morally right action. All I'm asking for is that the morally right decision shouldn't automatically resonate with all the companions or "good guys". You can save the day and be righteous if you want and have people tell you they think you're wrong as opposed to being amazing and then hearing everyone except the villain go "You're so amazing, I wanna be like you but I can't because you're sooo good!".
Well, DAI has some dialogue especially for when you p*ss off your companions.
Also, for the "bolded for emphasis" part above, the fact that Shepard moralizes and plays righteous no matter what thanks to no neutral option you're actually railroaded into being a flawed character that's wrongly portrayed as amazing.
I think that kinda wrecks the argument. Remember, I don't say Shepard in general was awful -- I specifically point out that I hated him IN ME3
And being forced to take morally questionable paths for the sake of drama is just as bad. Using TLoU as an example. The player has no actual choice in what Joel does. Now imagine Shepard having no choice but to, say kill the rachni queen. Or let Miranda kill Niket. Or work for Cerberus without checking in with the Council first (oh, wait...)
Saying not everyone will appreciate doing the "right thing" or even agreeing on what that is, is fine. I agree. But forcing the player to do questionable things to to create a "flawed" character takes away from player agency. And should not be done lightly.
Well, DAI has some dialogue especially fro when you p*ss off your companions.
And being forced to take morally questionable paths for the sake of drama is just as bad. Using TLoU as an example. The player has no actual choice in what Joel does. Now imagine Shepard having no choice but to, say kill the rachni queen. Or let Miranda kill Niket. Or work for Cerberus without checking in with the Council first (oh, wait...)
Saying not everyone will appreciate doing the "right thing" or even agreeing on what that is, is fine. I agree. But forcing the player to do questionable things to to create a "flawed" character takes away from player agency. And should not be done lightly.
I've thought of something I would like to see;
Let's say that sometimes there are decisions in which the protagonist can weigh in on and sometimes the followers take the player's advice but sometimes with other choices the followers remain by their own decision regardless of player's advice and the protagonist do not have the final say.
Now let's us there are scenarios like Garrus' loyalty mission in which the follower is attempting something severe like planning to kill someone and the protagonist knows about it and are with them. The protagonist can weigh in but the follower's decision remains the same and so the protagonist has the option of forcing their opinion by sabotaging the follower but at a negative to the relationship.
Sometimes the follower reconsiders their decision and so the negative is lessened to an extent but other times, they stand by their initial decision and the negative remains. The negatives could add up if not mitigated and result in some outcomes becoming impossible or more difficult to achieve.
This could help avert having a player becoming an accomplice to a severe choice like murder that they disagreed with and would logically act against while at the same time creating a logical consequence to the player orcing a choice in their favor.
Similarly this could be applied to a supposed relationship between the protagonist and their superior(s) in that there are consequences should the protagonist defy an order. Depending on what the order they defy are, they recieve a consequence.
It may result in be nothing more than a verbal lashing but another may be that the superior will be less likely to take the protagonist's side in something or give them the benefit of the doubt thereby making one outcome more difficult.
Condensed from OP's post
Something that irritates me ... is the notion that the 'PC' should be the most important, successful and idealized role in the game... if everything is a reaffirmation of how great the player is. Sometimes the protagonist is downright Gary-Stu/Mary-Sue like because they have zero flaws, accomplish everything and all their cohorts just stroke their ego...- it becomes too much, and characters aside the protagonist diminish in importance or competence in the story.
For example: 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?" [This begs the question of] who our character is as a human being. [This] adds depth to it and ... another sense of gratification that feels genuine.
There's nothing (worse?) than the sense that you're always doing good by completing objectives and then have NPCs tell you that you're amazing for it. By having addictive gameplay objectives and making the NPCs question the actions of the player you're enhancing the link between gameplay and story and it makes the characters feel more grounded and realistic.
More importantly, you can't have a good character if he has no flaws, and ... it means doing something incorrectly and being oblivious to it, and that makes the character human because humans are fallible and never perfect.
What do you think, and do you agree or disagree?
OP, I think you are making a good and novel point about having a PC's character/personality have a 'flaw' that can become an integral or recurring 'more realistic' aspect to the PC's attitudes and the outcome of their encounters throughout the game. As we see the PC's flaw wane and improve over time, we can begin to root for them even more. Understanding a character's 'flaws' can meaningfully help us understand the context of their personal background more completely, and what makes them 'tick.' I want to know more about my PC than just their drive to save the galaxy at all costs. We can become 'invested' in our avatar's personal development, in addition to improving their combat development through upgrades, and, rather than playing a homogeneous 'I'm always the same person from beginning to end.' Note: Players have commented that they liked shaping their Shepard's personality from starting out as a renegade to becoming a paragon type. This is a good argument against tying P/R points to the PC's capabilities or blocking dialog choices later in the game, imo. Let us see our PC grow as a character through the interactions they experience in-game. Does the PC ever question him/her self? Or even their attitude and decisions with the squadmates? Liara: "Shepard, why did you do that?" Questions should be asked of the PC that reveals them even further.
If the Protag has an obsessive character flaw, and it is spoken about by squadmates, fellow travelers, civilians, at alien encounters, etc., can it be useful as a character and story element? I'm thinking, like the OP, that it can make us more curious about the PC's background: "What is driving them so hard?" Where and how did that obsessive flaw originate?
Note: I would have liked to have seen Shepard talk more about their personal experience as a colonist, spacer, and earth-born that influenced their way of thinking and decisions in dialog choices. It seemed to me that Shepard's personal background made no difference - his/her attitudes and available dialog choices were homogeneous despite their optional backgrounds. How would Shepard have spoken or expressed their viewpoint in dialog options, considering their past as a colonist, or a spacer, or earthborn? Did the A. and C. dialog and D/E Persuasion options have to be tied to their Paragon or Renegade style? I might say something differently if I was a colonist and not earthborn, referencing my past personal experience as a way to handle a tense situation: "On Mindoir, I ...." The character's 'flaw' could offer similar alternate dialog choice possibilities rather than either 'I want to be the nice one, neutral, or the bully." I'm not knocking ME - it's a brilliant game and story despite it's minute or so-called 'glaring 'flaws'.
In ME-1, Ashley's character was highly criticized by some for being a bit 'racist' - her 'flaw' in distrusting aliens. I viewed her early 'alien-cautious' attitudes in ME-1 as an interesting alternate viewpoint for a character who had a very different human background, and not as a blatant racist in her character; especially not given her family's personal tragic experiences during the FCW, and with her having a limited experience in not working much with aliens in the Alliance and through her colonial tour duty experiences prior to meeting Shepard and the geth on Eden Prime. After all, she was stationed on Eden Prime to protect the colony from alien slavers and pirates. But Ashley's character 'flaw' grew to become far more accepting and trusting of her alien squadmates, growing with experience and time, and Shepard helped her to see the bigger picture and mature in this regard. Note: In ME-3, Ashley referred to Tali as 'kind of like a sister' if MaleShep changed romance interests from Ashley to Tali.
Ashley's so-called 'personal flaw' is a truer narrative and a contextual reality of the human experience - the personal growth that occurs in the course of seeing and experiencing situations that one hasn't had before. Mark Twain's Huck Finn changed his attitude (and ours) about black racial stereotypes in his journey down the Mississippi River with Miss Watson's slave, Jim. What if it was Shepard was forced to work with the aliens he'd never trusted before? Ashley's personal 'flaw' narrative served the reality function that not everyone had mentally or emotionally gotten over the loss of life and tragic circumstances due to the First contact war - only 20 years earlier. And - she was absolutely correct: Many of the aliens (including members of the Council) didn't trust humans either. So, were the aliens' anti-human attitudes racist too? Where was the fan outrage over their comparable 'racism' to humans? Non-existent. That leads to the story problem where humans think they are better than aliens.
As I've thought about your OP comments, they got me thinking about how a PC's obsessive flaw could be addressed in the course of completing the plot, and ways that conversations would reference it during the course of the game.
Q. Is the PCs obsessive flaw something that makes the PC more successful, or less successful?
Q. Does the PC's personal obsession achieve a cathartic (or therapeutic) healing at the ending climax of the story arc?
Q. How does the PC react to the other characters when they are talking with the PC about their 'flaw'.
Q. How would the PC react if they entered a room on the ship where their squaddies were talking/grumbling about him/her in an unflattering or critical way?
Q. What if the PC's flaw caused a squadmate to leave, or it caused a squadmate to turn against him/her?
Other ideas?
OP, a corollary to your question: Do you think it is unrealistic and boring that the PC is always successful?
It can and does for me, at times. I'd rather have some mission setbacks, or mission failures, and eagerly anticipate how my character is going to handle the next encounter to defeat them (Like Kai Leng, and facing off with Saren at Virmire, and Saren escapes)). I also wonder how it would feel to me if I chose the wrong squadmates for a mission, and it would end in a mission failure or a squadmate's death (eliminated from the game entirely), where I didn't make a mission choice like on Virmire as to who would live or die. In this scenario, I would be utterly stunned that one of my squadmates had been eliminated from the game. This is why Mordin's loss at the tower was a very moving ('feel') experience for me. Either my squad is reduced for my playing future missions, or I'd have to replay the level with different squaddies to achieve a successful outcome with no squadmate deaths. Perhaps a squadmate is wounded and has to play wounded for the rest of the game. As it is, I can successfully complete any mission regardless of who I choose for my squad. It's a bit boring in that I already know that I will be successful regardless of my squad choices.
Q. What if, in the course of the battles in Andromeda, the PC loses as many battles as he/she wins? What if the very ending of ME:A leaves the Protag in a draw, a stalemate where this is no resolution (yet) - and the final confrontation will not be decided until the end of the second or third game? A cliffhanger? And... if it's related to the PC's fatal 'flaw'? Would you say that you are going to be 'satisfied' with an unfinished story? This is also a possible reality - not winning for a while over several episodes. Comic books, like soap operas, leave you hanging with the 'what in the blank is going to happen next' limbo - feverish for the next installment. How long would you be willing to go in a game if the penultimate boss defeat did not occur until the end of three episodes? For me, it would depend on how many years it would take BW to complete the next trilogy. I might prefer to play a series of DLCs that were like a comic book series issues, where each DLC progresses the main story a little further each time. Each DLC is spaced out every 3-6 months or so for several years, instead of having a slew of DLCs released within a few months of the game's initial release that are only another mission in the current timeline. I need to think a little bit more about this.
I'm interest to read additional serious comments on how a character's 'flaw' could add to the interest in a ME game.
What character flaws do others of you think would make ME:A more interesting?
And being forced to take morally questionable paths for the sake of drama is just as bad. Using TLoU as an example. The player has no actual choice in what Joel does. Now imagine Shepard having no choice but to, say kill the rachni queen. Or let Miranda kill Niket. Or work for Cerberus without checking in with the Council first (oh, wait...)
Saying not everyone will appreciate doing the "right thing" or even agreeing on what that is, is fine. I agree. But forcing the player to do questionable things to to create a "flawed" character takes away from player agency. And should not be done lightly.
True enough. In that regard, I think Dragon Age adresses it better. The world doesn't judge you. But your companions never stop judging your decisions, for better or worse. And in DA:I you can't buy your way with gifts anymore. Sometimes you can't please everybody, sometimes you can earn a person's respect but not their love or friendship, sometimes you want to punch them (providing extra content for less-than-positive relationships was a good idea).
In that sense, maybe ME:A could do something similar. Let the companions have their own opinion and not make everything depending on a single decision in a character's loyalty mission. Otherwise, it looks as if there's a goal to reach every character's "maximum level of positive feelings towards the PC", and as if said goal is achievable as long as you play the "right" way.
I think Dragon Age addresses it better. The world doesn't judge you. But your companions never stop judging your decisions, for better or worse.
Sometimes you can't please everybody, sometimes you can earn a person's respect but not their love or friendship.
Maybe ME:A could let the companions have their own opinion and not make everything depending on a single decision in a character's loyalty mission. Otherwise, it looks as if there's a goal to reach every character's "maximum level of positive feelings towards the PC", and as if said goal is achievable as long as you play the "right" way.
Well, there is the issue of unit cohesion.
I'd really like to read comments from combat vets about how differences among a unit's members can affect their relationships and cooperation during combat vs downtime.
Does BW, or other game devs, ever consult with experienced military vets regarding dialog options?
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.
I think we may have played different games xD
I remember plenty of times when Geralt's allies criticized him quite harshly, and relatively few when they praised him. If they did, it seem about what you would expect from close friends, but nothing overmuch (like "you're literally the most awesomest person in the entire galaxy!").
And I never saw it as Geralt brushing off insults because he thought he was better, but because he was so used to it that he had grown impervious to it. Reading the books has reinforced this perception.
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.
I guess you mean Geralt?
The difference is, Geralt doesn't work for them. This is the guy who did everything Foltest asked him to, including the humiliating task of serving as his bodyguard, because you don't tell no to kings just like that.
Shepard never has to do what the Council wants, or what the Illusive Man wants, or what Hackett wants, even when by all rights he should. He can outright insult them and badmouth them all the time, and they never respond to any significant extent.
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.
Err, no. In the battle I was referring to, Group A won if Geralt was with them because an internal conspiracy weakened Group B. If he is with Group B, his sniffing around arouses the suspicions of said group causing them to discover the conspiracy by accident, and therefore winning. Really, that's it.
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.
Granted, to an extent. He's still not the most important person in his universe (that would be his daughter). Kings hire him because he's a monster hunter with superpowers, and those are hard to come by. Some people love him, some people hate him. Some women want him, many don't. One even dumps him for perfectly legitimate reasons (that one still gets me xD).
TW series is hardly without flaws (same as everything else, really), but if there is something I'd like Bioware to take from it would be a. implementation of choices and consequences and b. implementation of a more grounded protagonist. Mind you, I'm not saying there isn't some wish fulfillment going on with Geralt (he's still a badass mutant with superpowers who solves crimes, kills big bad monsters and, let's face it, gets laid a lot), just that is very small compared to the absurd extremes of Shepard or the Inquisitor.
And also, it's not like Bioware hasn't made fairly grounded protagonists at times. I think Hawke and, to a lesser extent, the Warden fit the bill. Way more awesome than the average person has any right to be? Sure. But still believable by RPG standards. I strongly disagree with you on this one because I think it's a terrible idea to tell Bioware that they're just doing what everyone else is doing anyway. Maybe they are, but on a whole 'nother level. I'd rather not encourage complacency on their part.
EDIT: Oh! I also agree that a Renegade run makes Shepard less of a Mary Sue. But that is not only an imperfect fix; I happen to think that having it so a character is over the top perfect depending on your choices is as bad as having him or her be over the top perfect no matter what.
I've thought of something I would like to see;
Let's say that sometimes there are decisions in which the protagonist can weigh in on and sometimes the followers take the player's advice but sometimes with other choices the followers remain by their own decision regardless of player's advice and the protagonist do not have the final say.
Now let's us there are scenarios like Garrus' loyalty mission in which the follower is attempting something severe like planning to kill someone and the protagonist knows about it and are with them. The protagonist can weigh in but the follower's decision remains the same and so the protagonist has the option of forcing their opinion by sabotaging the follower but at a negative to the relationship.
Personally I would like to see somewhat-loyalty system. Something close to Zaeed loyalty mission, except there is no paragon (or renegade for that matter) back-up. If you want your squadmates to love you and possibly survive you gonna dance the way they want. If you follow strict White/Black Knight code get ready to face some hate. P/R system would also be seen from different angle, representing your ability to do things your way, if you break plans of your team, then breaking some NPC will be simple.
I'm STILL mad about that. Honestly, I kind of wish that Shep has stayed dead over joining Cerberus and there would b a whole new protagonist.Let's not go crazy with that one. We did, after all, basically just come out of a game where Bioware forced us to more or less side with the Space Nazis.
I'm STILL mad about that. Honestly, I kind of wish that Shep has stayed dead over joining Cerberus and there would b a whole new protagonist.
I thought he was referring to the Reapers myself. Cerberus isn't so much Nazi as they are overly-aggressive pragmatist ISIS.
The Reapers are the ones who wish to commit genocide and have in fact, already done so.
I am still not sure what Shepard dying really accomplished seeing as people seemed to have little trouble with Shepard turning out to be alive. Even Shepard do not seem to have any thoughts towards having died and having been brought back a cyborg.
If it was done to establish the Collectors as a threat and add a time gap that could have easily been done some other way that did not result in so much wasted potential.
Even Shepard in a coma because of a Collector attack would have been better, in my opinion, and if they had to end up with Cerberus, they could have found themselves blocked by the Alliance at every turn until they joined an unauthorized group out of desperation and necessity that was eventually revealed to secretly have been Cerberus.
The way Bioware creates their PCs, not going to happen. They love the hero myth too much, and player empowerment is integral to the way they construct choice and consequence.
The hero's journey is about the individual, not necessarily a messiah figure. One can be on the hero's journey for selfish reasons and not benefit anyone except themselves and those close to them.
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).
It's a given in RPGs that the PC will be amazing and successful. How else would we be able to accomplish what we do? For me, I think it would help, though, if we're not shown as the only hero in the universe. When the PC is the only person capable of solving an issue or is the only one we see even trying, it makes everyone else seem incompetent and makes the PC look more amazing.
I like games where there are other adventurers/heroes around, sometimes even competing with us on a quest. Even though the PC is going to win against them (or not, depending on player choice), at least the game shows that other people are also capable and trying to fix things in the world rather than wait around for the PC to arrive.
So I liked that we finally got to see a non-evil Spectre in Jondum Bau who was doing his own thing to help the galaxy. He used our help, but he had already done 90% of the research and legwork and was capable on his own.
I'd like them to do something with decisions in games along the lines of Iron Bull's companion quest in DAI and the Trespasser DLC.
I like the possibility of being bitten in the rear by our choices, or having a choice we thought was right/best, turn out to NOT be the best in the long term.
Agreed. Part of me doesn't want this, because I like being able to pick options without hidden consequences, but that's not realistic. Plus, it encourages replaying the game if we don't like certain outcomes and want to "fix" it in the next run. It's silly that most consequences to quests are immediate and one dimensional.
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,
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.
Have there been many people who complain about the Divine election? I am genuinely asking because I haven't seen much of that, more people asking which decisions they need to make in order to achieve their desired candidate. I personally really liked the Divine election system, as it took our actions into account and even allowed us to try to influence the election through the war table, but ultimately the PC didn't make the choice. I think more decisions need to be made like this, as it's more realistic.
Take Garrus' ME2 mission. If, all throughout ME1 and ME2, we had been giving him renegade advice on how to live his life, but then chose the paragon choice when it came to Sidonis, shouldn't Garrus at least have been conflicted and possibly overridden our decision? I know that Shep has to have certain levels of paragon or renegade to unlock dialogue options, but there's the possibility of telling Garrus one thing while doing another. Do as I say, not as I do. And Garrus seems the type to ignore what's said and follow a person's actions.
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.
But that's an issue, if paragon is the "correct" way to do things and renegade is the "lesser" method. Which is what happens in ME 90% of the time. I think the game's morality system needs to be less black and white. Sometimes the renegade option should be the "correct" method, sometimes paragon, sometimes neither. Frankly, many of the paragon choices in the games were unrealistic in that Shepard relied on happy thoughts and naive trust that everything would work out...and then everything worked out. The dalatress was an obvious corrupt politician out to be a meanie to the poor krogan. Saving the rachni queen turned out to be the "better" decision since we gained war assets in 3 for saving her and losing them if the imposter queen was in her place.
It would be better, as mentioned above, if long term consequences for decisions varied between paragon and renegade, rather than being fairly confident that choosing paragon would yield the better results.
I am still not sure what Shepard dying really accomplished seeing as people seemed to have little trouble with Shepard turning out to be alive. Even Shepard do not seem to have any thoughts towards having died and having been brought back a cyborg.
If it was done to establish the Collectors as a threat and add a time gap that could have easily been done some other way that did not result in so much wasted potential.
Even Shepard in a coma because of a Collector attack would have been better, in my opinion, and if they had to end up with Cerberus, they could have found themselves blocked by the Alliance at every turn until they joined an unauthorized group out of desperation and necessity that was eventually revealed to secretly have been Cerberus.
I always suspected it was done to help "explain" the player being able to change an imported character's class and appearance at the beginning of ME2... something that Bioware probably anticipated that people would want to do given the dramatic changes to the combat mechanics between the two games. Between ME2 and ME3, I think Bioware realized that people didn't really care about filling in a back story that way. If they wanted to change up their imported character, they would just do it regardless... but it does create quite a few story gaps if one takes, for example, a soldier import from ME2 and turn him/her into a biotic for ME3.
But that's an issue, if paragon is the "correct" way to do things and renegade is the "lesser" method. Which is what happens in ME 90% of the time. I think the game's morality system needs to be less black and white. Sometimes the renegade option should be the "correct" method, sometimes paragon, sometimes neither. Frankly, many of the paragon choices in the games were unrealistic in that Shepard relied on happy thoughts and naive trust that everything would work out...and then everything worked out. The dalatress was an obvious corrupt politician out to be a meanie to the poor krogan. Saving the rachni queen turned out to be the "better" decision since we gained war assets in 3 for saving her and losing them if the imposter queen was in her place.
It would be better, as mentioned above, if long term consequences for decisions varied between paragon and renegade, rather than being fairly confident that choosing paragon would yield the better results.
The game's morality system is really not as B&W as people play it. Paragon is not universally more "correct" than "renegade" and not all choices actually assign P/R points. Therefore, there are numerous opportunities to select dialogue based purely on your own choice as to what might be appropriate from any slot on the wheel and not have it affect Shepard's overall paragon/renegade score. Also, in ME3, there are a number of choices that I would have considered to be Paragon that ultimately result in fewer war assets. Also, having the most war assets is not materially any better for the game than having just enough to secure the option of selecting the "best" ending (which, with the EC, is significantly lower than the maximum number of war assets you can collect in the game).
I am still not sure what Shepard dying really accomplished seeing as people seemed to have little trouble with Shepard turning out to be alive. Even Shepard do not seem to have any thoughts towards having died and having been brought back a cyborg.
If it was done to establish the Collectors as a threat and add a time gap that could have easily been done some other way that did not result in so much wasted potential.
Even Shepard in a coma because of a Collector attack would have been better, in my opinion, and if they had to end up with Cerberus, they could have found themselves blocked by the Alliance at every turn until they joined an unauthorized group out of desperation and necessity that was eventually revealed to secretly have been Cerberus.
"Why am I level 1 again?"
"Because we totally reset all class abilities and how leveling works and... er... because you died! That's it. Here, pick up that thermal clip."
I think this was done fairly well at least in ME1. Sure, Shepard is one of the greatest and most renowned N7s in the Alliance (well, at least we get to choose the story background why that is and it can be something very controversial like Torfan) but at least questions are asked.
When he becomes a Spectre, Shepard often gets confronted with questions about his new role. For example, I liked the interview with al-Jilani in ME1. Later, they made her into a joke but in her first appearance, she asks some really relevant questions. If you don't hit her (and I never do) but use the persuasion options, it's a very sensible interview.
The council and Udina is even too much of this in ME1. They will always criticize you whatever you do (which IMO is not great either, characters should have opinions, not be conduits for a message) and it culminates in grounding you in the end. Really, no one but Anderson has faith in Shepard in ME1.
Unfortunately, in ME2/3 they rather randomly changed it into "He's a legend, a bloody icon". I mean, yes, Shepard did play a pivotal role in the battle of the Citadel which would grant him respect but I agree with the OP, too much of it is not good for the character development (and Laarus was a lot).
Still even in ME2 and even in 3, Shep is criticized a lot for working with Cerberus. It's just handled really badly because the reason why Shep is working with them are shaky at best, the player gets no choice in the matter, most NPCs actually make weird arguments as to why working with Cerberus is bad (although there would be a whole lot of good ones) and all possible responses Shepard can give to those are even worse and really don't address the issues.
Additionally, in ME3, Shepard has anything but an easy time to convince the galaxy to work together.
So yea, people do wroship Shepard but it seems only the wrong people do and only when it doesn't matter. This is what makes it feel so weird.
So in principle, what the OP wants is implemented in the trilogy, it's just done shockingly badly in some instances in ME1 and especially in ME2/3.
Personally, I think what we need is a good balance of a capable PC with a clear motivation for their actions (or maybe more than one that we as players can choose from) and people would need to acknowledge that without outright worshiping them. That would be ideal but getting that balance right is tough to do and clearly people have different thresholds for what they see as acceptable.
\What I do agree with unequivocally is the fact that we shouldn't get an immediate pad on the back for every little thing we do. It's often much more rewarding to drag the PC through the mud for quite some time to just a get the pay-off at the end of a long challenge. For example, even if I hated Kai Leng and the fact that we have a couple of encounters where he had plot armor, when I finally did get to stab the bastard in the stomach it felt surprisingly good. 
I wonder how different the narrative would be, as well as the player character's perceived importance would be, if gameplay-wise Mass Effect operated much like XCOM. *Maybe that's because I've been on an XCOM 2 binge this whole weekend 
Sure "XCOM-Shepard" might be the leader of the squad and might be the first human Spectre, but when every fight is a life or death situation, and completing a mission with 15 kills is a harrowing experience that would tend to deflate any self important ideas. The fact that your character is no better than anyone else out there, that he/she has no intrinsic special feature that makes them more important than any other grunt, it would tend to reduce any ubermensch mentality of the player for their chosen character.
The game's morality system is really not as B&W as people play it. Paragon is not universally more "correct" than "renegade" and not all choices actually assign P/R points. Therefore, there are numerous opportunities to select dialogue based purely on your own choice as to what might be appropriate from any slot on the wheel and not have it affect Shepard's overall paragon/renegade score. Also, in ME3, there are a number of choices that I would have considered to be Paragon that ultimately result in fewer war assets. Also, having the most war assets is not materially any better for the game than having just enough to secure the option of selecting the "best" ending (which, with the EC, is significantly lower than the maximum number of war assets you can collect in the game).
I'm only going from the top of my head, but to me, the paragon choices are routinely more beneficial. Most of the time, they prevent an NPCs death, thereby allowing for additional content with that NPC in following games. Renegade can result in someone's death and eliminating subsequent quests linked to that person.
ME1:
Helping the undercover C-Sec agent posing as a waitress allows her to save Conrad Verner in 3
Saving the Rachni queen yields better war asset numbers, while the fake queen eventually turns traitor and decreases war assets
Siding with Gianna Parsini causes her appearance on Illium and additional side quest content
Saving the hostages in Bring Down the Sky DLC allows the batarian terrorist to survive into 3 and become a war asset
ME2:
Jack's loyalty mission has us allowing the other Cerebus test subject go free, then we get a news feed in ME3 that he sacrificed himself to protect civilians against reaper troops
Samara's loyalty mission is literally keeping her or recruiting her murderous daughter. Who automatically dies in ME3 if she survived ME2
Keeping Maelon's data allows for better choices in ME3 Tuchanka. Destroying it automatically eliminates some of the better outcomes for the krogan
Destroying the Collector Base is seen as the right decision by ALL squadmates and yields more war assets in 3 (AFAIR). Honestly, this is one of the dumber decisions, as I think the choice should have been between allowing Cerberus access to the base and turning it over to the Council. The base has valuable information against the Reapers, there is no way we should have been able to just destroy all of that information.
ME3:
Giving Miranda Spectre resources keeps her alive during the Sanctuary mission (if she was loyal in ME2?). regardless, renegade of not giving her resources automatically leads to her death
Paragon option keeps the VS alive if we've talked to them enough in the game. renegade option kills them
Paragon dialogue option with Diana Allers keeps us talking and increases war assets, renegade shuts her down and we don't get those assets
What I can recall of renegade results which are better than the paragon results are: telling Kelly to change her identity, resulting in her surviving the Cerberus purge; destroying the geth heretics creating more war assets for the geth in 3; killing the indoctrinated asari scientist on Saren's base prevents her from appearing in a news article in 3 having killed several asari officers; killing the asari Eclipse merc without proof of her guilt turns out to be "correct" (if vigilanteism can be correct) since she actually was guilty of crimes; renegade dialogue with Javik on the memory shard keeps him alive in the epilogue.
Interesting article noticing this same trend.
somebody understands.I agree. I think our character should have flaws like a real person in real life. Not be too idolized by others but rather be relatable.
I'm only going from the top of my head, but to me, the paragon choices are routinely more beneficial. Most of the time, they prevent an NPCs death, thereby allowing for additional content with that NPC in following games. Renegade can result in someone's death and eliminating subsequent quests linked to that person.
ME1:
Helping the undercover C-Sec agent posing as a waitress allows her to save Conrad Verner in 3
Saving the Rachni queen yields better war asset numbers, while the fake queen eventually turns traitor and decreases war assets
Siding with Gianna Parsini causes her appearance on Illium and additional side quest content
Saving the hostages in Bring Down the Sky DLC allows the batarian terrorist to survive into 3 and become a war asset
ME2:
Jack's loyalty mission has us allowing the other Cerebus test subject go free, then we get a news feed in ME3 that he sacrificed himself to protect civilians against reaper troops
Samara's loyalty mission is literally keeping her or recruiting her murderous daughter. Who automatically dies in ME3 if she survived ME2
Keeping Maelon's data allows for better choices in ME3 Tuchanka. Destroying it automatically eliminates some of the better outcomes for the krogan
Destroying the Collector Base is seen as the right decision by ALL squadmates and yields more war assets in 3 (AFAIR). Honestly, this is one of the dumber decisions, as I think the choice should have been between allowing Cerberus access to the base and turning it over to the Council. The base has valuable information against the Reapers, there is no way we should have been able to just destroy all of that information.
ME3:
Giving Miranda Spectre resources keeps her alive during the Sanctuary mission (if she was loyal in ME2?). regardless, renegade of not giving her resources automatically leads to her death
Paragon option keeps the VS alive if we've talked to them enough in the game. renegade option kills them
Paragon dialogue option with Diana Allers keeps us talking and increases war assets, renegade shuts her down and we don't get those assets
What I can recall of renegade results which are better than the paragon results are: telling Kelly to change her identity, resulting in her surviving the Cerberus purge; destroying the geth heretics creating more war assets for the geth in 3; killing the indoctrinated asari scientist on Saren's base prevents her from appearing in a news article in 3 having killed several asari officers; killing the asari Eclipse merc without proof of her guilt turns out to be "correct" (if vigilanteism can be correct) since she actually was guilty of crimes; renegade dialogue with Javik on the memory shard keeps him alive in the epilogue.
Interesting article noticing this same trend.
In ME1:
1) You can also help get Jenna out of Chora's Den using the Renegade dialogue options to intimidate Chellick. Once you convince him to let her go, you can meet the krogan arms dealer and kill him and keep the mod... and it will have no affect on Conrad Verner's fate.
2) Yes, saving the Rachni queen does yield more war assets... but as mentioned, you don't need more than 3,100 EMS (with the Extended Cut) to get the "best" ending unlocked... so anything above that is unnecessary. It is quite easy for people who play multiplayer to get much more EMS than a single player who doesn't... but also easy enough to get above 3,100 EMS in single player only even after having killed the Rachni Queen.
3) You can use Intimidate (renegade) options to convince Anolais to give you a pass and allow you to keep Lorik Quin's evidence as well. You can then turn that evidence over to Gianna and she will still appear in ME2. The side quest in ME2 merely gets you a store discount in ME2 and has no effect on ME3.
4) See Item 2 above.
ME2
1) Jack's loyalty mission... Saving Aresh does give you a positive email; however, if you save Rana Thanoptis in ME1, you'll get an email indicating that she's killed a number of high ranking asari military officials... so it does go both ways at different points in the game.
2) Samara vs. Morinth: One of the neatest moments for me in ME2 was the time I chose Morinth over Samara; and appointed Morinth as leader of the Second Team (with Jack holding up the barrier.) Morinth was shot by the door and died... a bit of a redeemed hero (and there is a neat bit of dialogue that goes with her death).
3) Maelon's Data: However, killing Wrex in ME1 can result in allowing Shepard to sabotage the genophage and keep Mordin alive.
4) Destroying the collector base in ME2 actually results in fewer war assets in ME3 as opposed to keeping it. Destroying it yields the Reaper Heart at 80 WA and keeping it yields the Reaper Brain at 110 WA. So, despite what your crewmates think of the decision... keeping the collector base and turning it over for research is the most advantageous choice for the war effort later on.
ME3
Siding with the Cafe Owner (not the C-Sec officer), allowing him to keep his surveillance videos yields +5 WA; whereas supporting the C-Sec officer yields -2 WA; Likewise, supporting the Dock Officer in turning away the refugee ship yields +7 WA; whereas supporting the Refugee yields -2 WA. There are several of these where the + WA isn't on the side one would intuitively think as being paragon.
The only WA affected by Diana Allers is Diana Allers. If you let her on board and don't ever throw her off, you get her WA... but you don't actually have to speak with her again to keep her War Asset. The only result of not talking with her is that Shepard (if male) can't bang her and he/she won't get the email about her holding a wake for Shepard near the end of the game.
Some of my highest WA yielding playthroughs have been the ones that have leaned towards the Renegade side of things. If you want to verify anything I've stated here... the information is also available in the Wiki (and I have verified the Wiki as correct through my playthroughs).
All of the decisions that the games gave Shepard involving the fate of an entire species were dumb, and not just in a: "What is a common frontline soldier doing with this kind of power?" kinda way either. You have this really varied and nuanced setting, and your first action as a developer is to let players wipe out said nuance and variety, and to handcuff your writing team to making these multiple alien species more or less trivial in the long run, all for the sake of preserving player choice.
Players should never, never, never, never (you get the idea) be given such agency in a game like this ever again (IMO). The developer is basically lopping off entire sections of a setting, preventing any sort of in depth exploration of those ideas or concepts in the future because that species, or that nation could be gone in someone else's play through.
Retour en haut