160 réponses à ce sujet

[Sabre120]

It was never meant to stop the Reapers, just like ME1, Shepard is simply trying to postpone the inevitable whilst he continues to find a way to destroy the Reapers once and for all

[7a7ec]

Dinkamus_Littlelog wrote...

Huh, what a coincidence, I was just talking about this.

To OP: I agree completely.

Harbinger sums up ME2s main plot perfectly: "This changes nothing".

It really did feel like a bit of a time waste. Seems like ME2 is one half foreshadow, the other half sitting on what ME1 started.

THIS ....

[Grand Rider]

NuclearBuddha wrote...

ZennExile wrote...

NuclearBuddha wrote...

Seems to me like the defeat of the Collectors is kinda important to isolated human colonies in the Terminus Systems. Just saying.

Maybe but if you think about it, the collectors could never just attack earth on their own and earth is apparently the only source of human genetic goo large enough to finish making the baby reaper.  So ya win some ya lose some.  At least the collectors leave all the colonies in tact so we can re-settle.

Oh and yeah the baby human reaper would be scary but it would also not matter until the rest of the reapers showed up to escort it to earth.

That means a whole heck of a lot to all the helpless humans getting slaughtered out in the Terminus Systems.  Yeah, you're probably right.  They only died in agony, leaving behind grieving relatives (and sometimes not even that, if the whole family got taken, so that's cool, right?).  At least the colonies are intact.  Good game Collectors, maybe if you mattered more we'd do something about it.

Pffft.

*Applauds*

Really... It's like empathy is a rare commodity on the Internet.

[DRACO1130]

In BOTH games - we NEVER were permitted to approach Earth proper - given the First Contact war and Humanity's natural paranoia - Anyone care to speculate on what our Planetary defesnes are like ? A safe bet they are far more than they need to be.

[Canez fan 1988]

DRACO1130 wrote...

In BOTH games - we NEVER were permitted to approach Earth proper - given the First Contact war and Humanity's natural paranoia - Anyone care to speculate on what our Planetary defesnes are like ? A safe bet they are far more than they need to be.

Probably. Another thing, why would anyone assume the Collector's would be dumb enough for a direct strike on Earth without at least building up their forces a little more? There were more than enough colonized worlds out in the galaxy to finish building that human reaper without attacking Earth.

[DRACO1130]

I just don't see ANY evidence ANYWHERE that Earth was EVER considered a target - they throw that in at nearly the very last minute of the game - I think it is a red herring - earth isn't going to get them ANy closer to the citadel or even re creation of the Protheans last gasp on Ilos - the conduit - Unless ME3 opens with the 'remains of Ilos" being shipped to earth for 'study' In which case i will admit I am wrong but barring that - earth doesn't matter.

[Klijpoplayxbox]

smudboy wrote...

Again: where do we see Shepard develop as a leader?

Erm, every loyalty mission. Major ones, Jack's, Zaeed's, Tali's, Legion's, Grunt's. Conversation with the Illusive Man. Sorting out conflicts among the crew. Dealing with the old Council. Losing your crew. Making the decisions on who does what at the end. Owning Cerberus. You know, executive decisions...

Remember, the playable character can only ever be a cipher for the player, which is why I say those who cannot see development lack imagination. It's called role-playing for a reason. It's up to you as a player to invest your choices with meaning. If you want someone else to do it for you, read a book or watch a film.

Every squad member gets oodles of character development. So does Joker.

[smudboy]

Klijpoplayxbox wrote...

smudboy wrote...

Again: where do we see Shepard develop as a leader?

Erm, every loyalty mission. Major ones, Jack's, Zaeed's, Tali's, Legion's, Grunt's. Conversation with the Illusive Man. Sorting out conflicts among the crew. Dealing with the old Council. Losing your crew. Making the decisions on who does what at the end. Owning Cerberus. You know, executive decisions...

Remember, the playable character can only ever be a cipher for the player, which is why I say those who cannot see development lack imagination. It's called role-playing for a reason. It's up to you as a player to invest your choices with meaning. If you want someone else to do it for you, read a book or watch a film.

Every squad member gets oodles of character development. So does Joker.

You've yet to show me where specifically Shepard has developed as a leader, and how.  Explain one instance where this occurs.

I do not lack imagination.  I lack the evidence where you're trying to support your claim of Shepard growing as a leader.

Shepard could very well be a leader already, but they are not growing as such.  You listing character's names only proves you don't know what you're talking about.

Also, I do not understand your use of the word cipher.

I'm not arguing that other characters get character dev. I'm arguing that Shepard doesn't, and that there are no examples of him/her developing as a leader.

Modifié par smudboy, 21 février 2010 - 05:56 .

[Klijpoplayxbox]

smudboy wrote...
Shepard could very well be a leader already, but they are not growing as such.  You listing character's names only proves you don't know what you're talking about.

Um, pot and kettle.

Listing
names is to show examples of where Shep exerts leadership over the
squad. You ask me to show where it occurs, and when I do, you claim
that proves I don't know what I'm talking about. Making squad members loyal is the very definition of developing leadership. You can fail to do it, in which case your Shepard has not developed as well as one that succeeds.

Zaeed's mission is the clearest example: if you go the paragon route you must have developed your paragon enough to keep Zaeed onside. In this case, you do not persuade as you did with Wrex, you lamp him in the jaw.

Another example is the romance with Tali - ok not leadership development, but character development - which changes the dynamic between those characters a fair bit.

Also, I do not understand your use of the word cipher.

Exactly. (Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about, then).

Shepard is a cipher for you, the player. Bioware gives you the tools (the dialogue options, the choices) and then it is up to you to 'develop' the character, which is why I mention imagination. If you want the games company to do all the character development for you, maybe Uncharted is more your cup of tea. If you're in charge of the story, it is up to you to invest.

Bioware have done their bit. Playing a paragon is much more aggressive in ME2, and the renegade is mellower, to a degree.

You end ME2 a different character than in ME1, angrier, bitter (but not twisted, unless you're a full on renegade), but more confident and dynamic. You're not only fighting for humanity - your are the champion of the galaxy, even if not everyone knows that yet. And you'r ein charge, not the Council, not TIM, not even Anderson (he's no longer your mentor - the student has exceeded the master). But you've also had to compromise your ideals, work with Cerberus, even abandon previous allies. Basically, your going to save the world whether they like it or not.

[Darth Garrus]

smudboy wrote...

You've yet to show me where specifically Shepard has developed as a leader, and how.  Explain one instance where this occurs.

I do not lack imagination.  I lack the evidence where you're trying to support your claim of Shepard growing as a leader.

Sorry, but, by now, you must be trolling. Shepard came from an easy recruitment in ME1 to a very tough one in ME2, dealing with mercs, warriors not used to be taught what to do, and criminal scum. The whole point of the loyalty missions was to test Shepard´s leadership. Take Zaeed´s for example. He begins the mission disobeying, doing what he was used to: being by himself. It is a very well writen piece, with Zaeed and Shepard trading punches, and ending by Shepard convincing the guy that his views are the right ones. Zaeed becomes loyal and a team worker.

And the list goes on. And then Shepard has to deal with struggles within the group, as Miranda and Jack, and Tali and Legion, almost kill themselves. And you can make all of them stand down and remain loyal and focused.

Also, he manages to go from a military guy who didn´t need to think that much about being a leader on an alliance ship, and "a great warrior, but a strange in a cerberus ship", to gaining everyone to his cause. Even making some crazy cerberus loyalists into "Shep-mates".

And then, all the allies he made and is trying to make them relate to his cause. Take the MIgrant Fleet, for example. He not only dealt with a judgement, but he also managed to appeal to them to wait to the real war, instead of going against just the Geth.

Are those really not a sign of growth as a leader???

[DurkBakala]

They were building a reaper as a relacement for Sovereign so they could try and activate the Citadel relay once more. That's what I got from it.



Of course it's deeper than that and I hope some things are explained in ME3, but that's what the jist was i think.

[smudboy]

Klijpoplayxbox wrote...

Listing names is to show examples of where Shep exerts leadership over the squad. You ask me to show where it occurs, and when I do, you claim that proves I don't know what I'm talking about. Making squad members loyal is the very definition of developing leadership. You can fail to do it, in which case your Shepard has not developed as well as one that succeeds.

Listing is not helpful, when I need specific examples of where Shepard growth occurs.  Giving me a list of types of fruit does not tell me how on such and such a day, ersatz apple has grown.  Luckily you gave an example below, so I won't bother with the above paragraph.

Leadership is defined by the ability to lead.  The definition of lead is:
1) to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort.
2) to conduct by holding and guiding.
3) to influence or induce; cause.
4) to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring.
5) to command or direct.

To simplify, we'll use 5.  Therefore, Shepard, who is in charge, is a leader, because they can command or direct others.  You could say that to trust a leader is to be loyal to them.

"Making squad members loyal" is clearly not the definition of leadership, developing it or otherwise.  That's simply incorrect.

Zaeed's mission is the clearest example: if you go the paragon route you must have developed your paragon enough to keep Zaeed onside. In this case, you do not persuade as you did with Wrex, you lamp him in the jaw.

Another example is the romance with Tali - ok not leadership development, but character development - which changes the dynamic between those characters a fair bit.

Finally.  Thank you for the example.

Again, the P/R system is not an example of character development or leadership evolution.  It's a series of choices the player has selected.  A player pressing a button doesn't make their avatar socially or psychologically different, unless it's a "change character" button, or literally causes the character represented to actually change.  They may act a given way, but that's purely static.  If it's purely static, then it's not dynamic, and thus the nature of the character is not one to be able to change.  Shepard, by design, is flat and static.  It is not that he/she cannot be anything else, like being round: the designers simply didn't allow Shepard to become as such, let alone any other way.  Character development can only occur for a dynamic, round character.

"A dynamic character is one who, during the course of the story, changes significantly. Significant changes might include changes in insight or understanding, changes in commitment, or changes in values.
Changes in circumstance, even physical circumstance, would not qualify
unless they result in some change within the character's self. An example of a dynamic character is Guy Montag, the main character in the novel Fahrenheit 451.[26] In contrast, a static character does not undergo significant change, remaining basically unchanged (in understanding, commitment, values) throughout a work"

So in the Zaeed example, if you go Paragon, you punch Zaeed.  How has Shepard changed as a leader here?  He's confronted with conflict, he punches someone who disagrees with him.  Where's the growth?  Where's the "leadership evolution" of Shepard?  This is a physical circumstance, and does not effect Shepard personally, idealistically.  We can argue that he is a leader, because he acted as such, but he has not developed as a leader.  Which is exactly what you're trying to prove.

In regards to the romance with Tali: you have to be more specific.

Exactly. (Maybe you don't know what I'm talking about, then).

This is self-evident.

Shepard is a cipher for you, the player. Bioware gives you the tools (the dialogue options, the choices) and then it is up to you to 'develop' the character, which is why I mention imagination. If you want the games company to do all the character development for you, maybe Uncharted is more your cup of tea. If you're in charge of the story, it is up to you to invest.

definition of cipher:1) The mathematical symbol (0) denoting absence of quantity; zero.
2) An Arabic numeral or figure; a number.
3) One having no influence or value; a nonentity.
4a)A
cryptographic system in which units of plain text of regular length,
usually letters, are arbitrarily transposed or substituted according to
a predetermined code.
4b) The key to such a system.
4c) A message written or transmitted in such a system.
5) A design combining or interweaving letters or initials; a monogram.

I think what you're trying to say is, Shepard is the avatar the player controls.  Not a cipher.
Again, the P/R system does not develop the Shepard character.  It could, but it doesn't.

Bioware have done their bit. Playing a paragon is much more aggressive in ME2, and the renegade is mellower, to a degree.

You end ME2 a different character than in ME1, angrier, bitter (but not twisted, unless you're a full on renegade), but more confident and dynamic. You're not only fighting for humanity - your are the champion of the galaxy, even if not everyone knows that yet. And you'r ein charge, not the Council, not TIM, not even Anderson (he's no longer your mentor - the student has exceeded the master). But you've also had to compromise your ideals, work with Cerberus, even abandon previous allies. Basically, your going to save the world whether they like it or not.

How and where is ME2 Shepard angrier, more bitter, more confident and dynamic than in ME1?  That entire argument can be applied to ME1 Shepard, minus TIM.

What ideals has Shepard compromised?

I feel your imagination is getting away with you.

[smudboy]

Darth Suetam wrote...

...the whole point of the loyalty missions was to test Shepard´s leadership. Take Zaeed´s for example. He begins the mission disobeying, doing what he was used to: being by himself. It is a very well writen piece, with Zaeed and Shepard trading punches, and ending by Shepard convincing the guy that his views are the right ones. Zaeed becomes loyal and a team worker.

Then that is an example of Zaeed developing as a character, and Shepard influencing that change.  Shepard's leadership skills aren't being developed or changed.  (Also, I don't recall Shepard being punched.)  You could say they're being challenged, but if nothing changes in Shepard , there is no growth, no development, thus, nada.  Shepard met with a challenge and subdued it, regardless of the outcome to Zaeed.  Shepard is still Shepard: the flat and static character he is.

And the list goes on. And then Shepard has to deal with struggles within the group, as Miranda and Jack, and Tali and Legion, almost kill themselves. And you can make all of them stand down and remain loyal and focused.

Yes, Shepard does these things.  He's being challenged.  He's the leader.  He could be a good leader (I guess if you want to argue for the use of the P/R system in that case), or a poor one, but his leadership skills, his ideals, his personality, are not changing.  This is because Shepard is a flat and static character.

Also, he manages to go from a military guy who didn´t need to think that much about being a leader on an alliance ship, and "a great warrior, but a strange in a cerberus ship", to gaining everyone to his cause. Even making some crazy cerberus loyalists into "Shep-mates".

And then, all the allies he made and is trying to make them relate to his cause. Take the MIgrant Fleet, for example. He not only dealt with a judgement, but he also managed to appeal to them to wait to the real war, instead of going against just the Geth.

Are those really not a sign of growth as a leader???

No, they're clearly not.  How are they?

Shepard influences others (squadmates, Migrant Fleet, etc.)  Not the other way around.  He himself is not influenced or changed, and thus does not grow.  His character is exactly the same.  He is a static and flat character...

[ZennExile]

The short answer to smudboy's brain buster is; ME2 did not advance the story, or the characters, in any meaningful way. Every outcome beyond this episode of the story will be completely unaffected.



In ME1 you could push the personality of your shepard to the extreme left or right AND sway the personality of your teamates to match. You are even able to sway the overarching story elements to reflect your personality choices.



In ME2 there are no meaningful choices that have a "tangeble" impact on Shepard or the Team or even the overarching story elements. It's just a) or c) and move on. No matter what the choice was you move on in exactly the same way and at the conclusion of the experience (full game or just that particular segment of it) you are left feeling like none of your choices mattered in any way.



This is why ME1 is far superior to ME2 in almost every imaginable way. I'd rather drive the Mako around a 500 square mile plot shooting those pyjacks and randomly getting killed by Threshr Maws with no warning for hours on end, than play another minute of ME2 knowing that no matter what I do neither the outcome or the journey will change.



Bioware has proven itself to be a much better developer than this. If we don't hold them to that standard of greatness they won't hold themselves to it either. Trying to justify why ME2 is lackluster compared to other Bioware games just give them an excuse to do it again with ME3 and if you think the "complaining" is bad now, just wait and see what happens to ME3 if nothing changes at Bioware and they make another poorly thought out cash grab title like they did with ME2.

[bluem00se]

 Well this IS the middle chapter. ME was designed as a trilogy from the beginning. And it was important if you ask me. It's only unimportant if you convince yourself that it wasn't because it's intermediate events between ME1 and ME3.

[Darth Garrus]

smudboy wrote...

No, they're clearly not.  How are they?

Shepard influences others (squadmates, Migrant Fleet, etc.)  Not the other way around.  He himself is not influenced or changed, and thus does not grow.  His character is exactly the same.  He is a static and flat character...

Well, I guess you just don´t want to concede the point. Of course Shepard is influenced. He was a guy who lead a team who was in great part all his soldiers, thus giving him no real challenging in commanding. That´s true. The ship was Alliance, the crew was Alliance, and 2 of the most important characters (Love Interests, and sacrificed ones) were Alliance. And the others were easy picks.

This time around HE is the stranger, on a ship that it´s not his (or at least he doesn´t feel that way - he struggles with TIM about he leading or being manipulated into situations), cerberus people, his companions, most of them, are people who does not trust or care for him (and certainly doesn´t have a military career to worry about), and Shep still manages to make them became a team.

He is faced with their problems, their points of view, has to change and adapt to new circunstances, and still he manages to lead. He discovers lots of new things that considerably change his views of the situation (Protheans, Genophage, races, people, Alliance, Cerberus, and so on).

How this is not the external element changing him? And not his ability to still lead a growth?

If you think Shep is a perfect leader, and those thing don´t represent change, by logic, you can´t ask for growth, because it would mean that he is already perfect as a leader, and there would be no need for growth. Make up your mind.

[smudboy]

bluem00se wrote...

 Well this IS the middle chapter. ME was designed as a trilogy from the beginning. And it was important if you ask me. It's only unimportant if you convince yourself that it wasn't because it's intermediate events between ME1 and ME3.

Explain.

At the end of ME2, Shepard is right where he ended in ME1.  We know the Collectors (who are all gone?) were Protheans.  And they were building a cybernetic giant Reaper.  Oh and Cerberus can cheat death.

What makes ME2 so important?

[Klijpoplayxbox]

smudboy wrote...
Leadership is defined by the ability to lead.  The definition of lead is:
1) to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort.
2) to conduct by holding and guiding.
3) to influence or induce; cause.
4) to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring.
5) to command or direct.

To simplify, we'll use 5.  Therefore, Shepard, who is in charge, is a leader, because they can command or direct others.  You could say that to trust a leader is to be loyal to them.

Why just use 5? Because it suits your argument better? Shepard also expresses 1 to 4, it's the point of the game, beyond shooting stuff. Shepard exert sinfluence everywhere he/she goes.

"Making squad members loyal" is clearly not the definition of leadership, developing it or otherwise.  That's simply incorrect.

No it isn't.

Loyalty:
—Synonyms
2. fealty, devotion, constancy. Loyalty, allegiance, fidelity all imply a sense of duty or of devoted attachment to something or someone. Loyalty connotes sentiment and the feeling of devotion that one holds for one's country, creed, family, friends, etc. Allegiance
applies particularly to a citizen's duty to his or her country, or, by
extension, one's obligation to support a party, cause,leader, etc. Fidelity implies unwavering devotion and allegiance to a person, principle, etc.

There's no leadership without loyalty.

Again, the P/R system is not an example of character development or leadership evolution. 

It is a mechanical expression of leadership and development. This is a game, not a movie.

"A dynamic character is one who, during the course of the story, changes significantly. Significant changes might include changes in insight or understanding, changes in commitment, or changes in values."

Hmmm. Allying with your former enemies, adjusting to not having a Council/Alliance safety net, 'cheating' on LI, maybe trusting AI's, potentially gaining the fealty of the Krogan and the Geth, either selling your soul to TIM or dismissing him. At the beginning, Shepard needed help, was forced to rely on strangers, even enemies, who he couldn't trust. He had to fight to regain his team, and in some cases failed. He had to potentially face more death than before, or this time defy the odds entirely. He had only his own force of will to get his way, and by the end he's higher than everyone else, the uncrowned leader of the free galaxy. He's rejected all authority, whereas in the first game he was earning his place for himself and humanity. And there is a little more insight into the reapers, too.

His story is what the player decides it to be, mediated by Bioware. Shepard is a cipher, as without the player he is mute and still (apart from the odd yawn), so yes, until the player makes a decision, a choice, he is a non-entity.

Again, the P/R system does not develop the Shepard character.  It could, but it doesn't.

Please explain, then, how they could have Shepard 'developing in leadership' and being more dynamic. Examples please.

How and where is ME2 Shepard angrier, more bitter, more confident and dynamic than in ME1?  That entire argument can be applied to ME1 Shepard, minus TIM.

What ideals has Shepard compromised?

I feel your imagination is getting away with you.

All depends on how, you, the player, plays the game. Extreme Paragon, or extreme Renegade, a bit of both, but which bits of both. The trail of bodies or of saved lives. That stuff only exists in the individual player's mind, and the save file. The squad/crew is also an expression of Shepard himself, and how he changes and develops them is part of his own development, too. And they all develop dramatically. That Shepard's himself is more subtle is precisely because this is a game.

Modifié par Klijpoplayxbox, 21 février 2010 - 11:55 .

[smudboy]

Darth Suetam wrote...

Well, I guess you just don´t want to concede the point. Of course Shepard is influenced. He was a guy who lead a team who was in great part all his soldiers, thus giving him no real challenging in commanding. That´s true. The ship was Alliance, the crew was Alliance, and 2 of the most important characters (Love Interests, and sacrificed ones) were Alliance. And the others were easy picks.

This time around HE is the stranger, on a ship that it´s not his (or at least he doesn´t feel that way - he struggles with TIM about he leading or being manipulated into situations), cerberus people, his companions, most of them, are people who does not trust or care for him (and certainly doesn´t have a military career to worry about), and Shep still manages to make them became a team.

He is faced with their problems, their points of view, has to change and adapt to new circunstances, and still he manages to lead. He discovers lots of new things that considerably change his views of the situation (Protheans, Genophage, races, people, Alliance, Cerberus, and so on).

Please give an example where Shepard has "to change and to new circumstances"

He may discover new things, and they may certainly change his view of the situation, but Shepard.  Does.  Not.  Change.  (Unless you can provide evidence, of course.)

How this is not the external element changing him? And not his ability to still lead a growth?

Example please (external element changing him.)

Example please (ability to still lead a growth.)

If you think Shep is a perfect leader, and those thing don´t represent change, by logic, you can´t ask for growth, because it would mean that he is already perfect as a leader, and there would be no need for growth. Make up your mind.

Yes, I think Shepard is a leader. I don't know if he's/she's a perfect leader.  I think he's/she's contrived, because he/she acts as a plot device: whatever the plot throws at him, Shepard can handle/subdue/fix.

And even if I think he/she is/isn't perfect, what difference does that make?  Shepard does not grow.  As.  A.  Leader.  Do you get what I'm saying yet?

[Schneidend]

Protecting Earth from an invasion it wouldn't have the technology or resources to fight back against is clearly unimportant.

Modifié par Schneidend, 21 février 2010 - 11:52 .

[ZennExile]

Schneidend wrote...

Protecting Earth from an invasion it wouldn't have the technology or resources to fight back against is clearly unimportant.

Yes because a Collector ship that couldn't even handle the defense towers of a small terminus system colony could invade earth with the entire alliance defending it...  Sure thing pal.  And that rainbow collored flying pig you ordered will take 6 to 8 weeks for delivery.  Make the blank check out to zennexile LLC  I'll fill in the amount when it gets here.

[smudboy]

Klijpoplayxbox wrote...

smudboy wrote...
Leadership is defined by the ability to lead.  The definition of lead is:
1) to go before or with to show the way; conduct or escort.
2) to conduct by holding and guiding.
3) to influence or induce; cause.
4) to guide in direction, course, action, opinion, etc.; bring.
5) to command or direct.

To simplify, we'll use 5. 

Therefore, Shepard, who is in charge, is a leader, because they can command or direct others.  You could say that to trust a leader is to be loyal to them.

Why just use 5? Because it suits your argument better? Shepard also expresses 1 to 4, it's the point of the game, beyond shooting stuff. Shepard exert sinfluence everywhere he/she goes.

Me telilng you the definition of leadership is not my point.  It's to clarify so we have a basis of understanding.  I can pick 1) "Shepard, who is in charge, is a leader, because he/she goes before, or shows people the way."  I'm trying ot make this easy on you, so we can understand each other.

No it isn't.

Loyalty:
—Synonyms
2. fealty, devotion, constancy. Loyalty, allegiance, fidelity all imply a sense of duty or of devoted attachment to something or someone. Loyalty connotes sentiment and the feeling of devotion that one holds for one's country, creed, family, friends, etc. Allegiance
applies particularly to a citizen's duty to his or her country, or, by
extension, one's obligation to support a party, cause,leader, etc. Fidelity implies unwavering devotion and allegiance to a person, principle, etc.

There's no leadership without loyalty.

Okay.  So now you gave me synonyms of the word loyalty.  So?

There most definitely is leadership without loyalty.  See any boss you work for.  Any teacher that teaches you.  You can hate/love, trust/not-trust, want to die/want to kill them.  Be it duty, geting what you want, or just because they said so, you'll follow them.  You may not be "loyal" to them in any sense, but they're in charge.

Jesus Christ man.  Shepard can lead his whole team in the suicide mission and none of them can be loyal.  It may not be effective leadership.  Maybe some will die.  But it's still leadership!

It is a mechanical expression of leadership and development. This is a game, not a movie.

Then what definition would you prefer?

Hmmm. Allying with your former enemies, adjusting to not having a Council/Alliance safety net, 'cheating' on LI, becoming, maybe trusting AI's, potentially gaining the fealty of the Krogan and the Geth, either selling your soul to TIM or dismissing him. At the beginning, Shepard needed help, was forced to rely on strangers, even enemies, who he couldn't trust. He had to fight to regain his team, and in some cases failed. He had to potentially face more death than before, or this time defy the odds entirely. He had only his own force of will to get his way, and by the end he's higher than everyone else, the uncrowned leader of the free galaxy. He's rejected all authority, whereas in the first game he was earning his place for himself and humanity. And there is a little more insight into the reapers, too.

Still no examples of Shepard changing or growing.

His story is what the player decides it to be, mediated by Bioware. Shepard is a cipher, as without the player he is mute and still (apart from the odd yawn), so yes, until the player makes a decision, a choice, he is a non-entity.

I believe we've determined the use of the word cipher is incorrect.  Avatar, player character, protagonist, or locus of control maybe?

Please explain, then, how they could have Shepard 'developing in leadership' and being more dynamic. Examples please.

www.writeandpublishyourbook.com/writing/write-a-book/character-development-in-fiction/

All depends on how, you, the player, plays the game. Extreme Paragon, or extreme Renegade, a bit of both, but which bits of both. The trail of bodies or of saved lives. That stuff only exists in the individual player's mind, and the save file. The squad/crew is also an expression of Shepard himself, and how he changes and develops them is part of his own development, too. And they all develop dramatically. That Shepard's himself is more subtle is precisely because this is a game.

Shepard influencing the others does not change Shepard.  Provide examples if that's what you believe.

Modifié par smudboy, 22 février 2010 - 12:16 .

[Klijpoplayxbox]

There most definitely is leadership without loyalty.  See any boss you work for.  Any teacher that teaches you.  You can hate/love, trust/not-trust, want to die/want to kill them.  Be it duty, geting what you want, or just because they said so, you'll follow them.  You may not be "loyal" to them in any sense, but they're in charge.

Jesus Christ man.  Shepard can lead his whole team in the suicide mission and none of them can be loyal.  It may not be effective leadership.  Maybe some will die.  But it's still leadership!

Leadership is not the same as being in charge; I've had bosses with no leadership skills at all, and luckily now I have one that does.

Indeed. Not having a loyal team is a sign of poor leadership. We started this discussion when you denied that Shepard had developed at a leader. In my play through, he/she certainly did, as I did have the loyalty of my squad. In my third play through, Shepard was even more effective, as no one died. You start with a team that is indifferent, you end with one that is loyal. That is growth as a leader, by any reasonable definition.

You seem to be mistaking growth as a leader with character development; they are not the same thing, quite clearly.

And BTW, I am a teacher, and can say with authority that loyalty is key to being a good leader/teacher. If you inspire your students, they are better students, and they are loyal. If you're a poor teacher, you inspire disloyalty in your students, ill discipline, and therefore poorer students. On this point, you are most definitely, emphatically wrong.

Still no examples of Shepard changing or growing.

Give us some examples of your criteria fulfilled from ME1 then.

I believe we've determined the use of the word cipher is incorrect.  Avatar, player character, protagonist, or locus of control maybe?

No, you decided it was so. Avatar is too imprecise for my meaning; an avatar can be automated, or act without agency. It is not what I meant - cipher is the correct term, as in "a non-entity", until the player exerts agency over the avatar itself. It also fits the other definitions, as Shepard is also the method through which the player decodes the story of ME. But that is by the by. I did not mean avatar quite specifically.

www.writeandpublishyourbook.com/writing/write-a-book/character-development-in-fiction/

That is not an example of how to use the P/R system to facilitate character development. It is tips on how to write better characters as an author.

This is why you're missing the point; ME is not a movie or a novel, it is a piece of interactive fiction, in which the user (reader+author) decides how the protagonist will act. Therefore, the player is also the author, as well as Bioware. All those things you list on that page occur within the players mind, as part of their motivation and their emotional connection to the squad and the crew.

Shepard influencing the others does not change Shepard.  Provide examples if that's what you believe.

Yes it does; it changes the player, who is Shepard. I can say I was very emotionally affected when my crew was snatched, and it certainly motivated me to go get 'em. The emotional connection to the other characters is key to the player's development.

[Missouri Tigers]

They were abducting humans by the thousands.  You can't let that continue.

[smudboy]

Klijpoplayxbox wrote...

Leadership is not the same as being in charge; I've had bosses with no leadership skills at all, and luckily now I have one that does.

diciontary.com
type in "leader"
Ctrl+F "charge"
lead·er  (lē'dər)
n.  

• One that leads or guides.
• One who is in charge or in command of others.

You are incorrect, sir.

Indeed. Not having a loyal team is a sign of poor leadership. We started this discussion when you denied that Shepard had developed at a leader. In my play through, he/she certainly did, as I did have the loyalty of my squad. In my third play through, Shepard was even more effective, as no one died. You start with a team that is indifferent, you end with one that is loyal. That is growth as a leader, by any reasonable definition.

Whether your team is loyal or not does not show Shepard evolving as a leader.  All those missions involve Shepard doing X for character B.  It shows that you can complete side missions where the game labels that characer as loyal.  Whether they like you more/feel loyal to you or not is indifferent to what you're stating.  Whether the outcome of those missions is loyalty or not, does not prove any evidence of "leadership evolution."  You could say it was effective or ineffective leadership, but that's really it.

Again, use examples to show this "leadership evolution/revolution/growth/change/whatever".

You seem to be mistaking growth as a leader with character development; they are not the same thing, quite clearly.

And BTW, I am a teacher, and can say with authority that loyalty is key to being a good leader/teacher. If you inspire your students, they are better students, and they are loyal. If you're a poor teacher, you inspire disloyalty in your students, ill discipline, and therefore poorer students. On this point, you are most definitely, emphatically wrong.

Argument from authority.  Nice.

I'm definitely, emphatically wrong.  Because: you're a teacher.

That's fantastic.

Give us some examples of your criteria fulfilled from ME1 then.

Criteria of what?

No, you decided it was so. Avatar is too imprecise for my meaning; an avatar can be automated, or act without agency. It is not what I meant - cipher is the correct term, as in "a non-entity", until the player exerts agency over the avatar itself. It also fits the other definitions, as Shepard is also the method through which the player decodes the story of ME. But that is by the by. I did not mean avatar quite specifically.

Oh, finally.  Thanks for actually defining the term.  So Shepard doesn't exist as an entity (aka character)?  Sure he/she does.  He's/she's right flippin there.

So avatar is the incorrect term.  But cipher is.  Yet when the person exerts agency over the avatar, I lose all my train of thought, because now you don't know what terms to use in a paragraph where you've defined a term you should've used.

Ooh.  My Shepard (aka CIPHER) is "decoding" the STORY of ME.  Look out.  I'm going to get all Matrix on you and fly around the house.

Just stop, please.

That is not an example of how to use the P/R system to facilitate character development. It is tips on how to write better characters as an author.

Yes.

This is why you're missing the point; ME is not a movie or a novel, it is a piece of interactive fiction, in which the user (reader+author) decides how the protagonist will act. Therefore, the player is also the author, as well as Bioware. All those things you list on that page occur within the players mind, as part of their motivation and their emotional connection to the squad and the crew.

ME is a work of fiction.  It follows the exact same rules of storytelling every other piece of fiction does.  The player is not the author.   Mac Walters and Drew Karpyshyn are.

If something occurs within the players mind, it doesn't occur within Shepard's mind.  I'm glad we had this discussion, so that I stop trying to crush your feet with my hair follicles from France.

Yes it does; it changes the player, who is Shepard. I can say I was very emotionally affected when my crew was snatched, and it certainly motivated me to go get 'em. The emotional connection to the other characters is key to the player's development.

The player is not Shepard. You just control Shepard.  You may be emotionally affected by the drama you experience.  But unless Shepard grows or changes, then there's no development.

The player's development?  Okay, what planet are we on now?  Are you developing as a player, a person?  What?

So we're playing this game.  First you're saying the player is the reader+author+Rumplestiltskin.  You're also saying the player is also Shepard.  Now the player is experiencing development.

I don't mean to drag the 4th wall into this.  Actually, you know what?  No more!  I can't take this ridiculous rambling anymore.  There is no hope for you.  I can't help you.  I'd like to.  I've been simple, straightforward, defined words, shown examples.  But you?  You're just in some quasi-Shepard-weird-world, where players are characters and authors and ciphers and bull****, and they evolve in leadership roles and eat Fig Neutons and everything's pixie's and fairies.

Modifié par smudboy, 22 février 2010 - 10:10 .