158 réponses à ce sujet

[DuffyMJ]

SLPr0 wrote...

DuffyMJ wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

Tinnic wrote...

While post-traumatic stress syndrome is pretty prevalent among military men and women, not everybody suffers from it. Some people simply able to compartmentalise trauma better then others. Shepard may well be on the autism spectrum and as such systemizes emotions more so then others. I also think it is a bit cliche that all heros with trauma in their past has to be tortured. Some people go through a lot of pain in their life but don't necessarily fall apart over it.

In addition, we have only seen Shepard in the midst of emergency. Often, in these situations, the emotional analysis is differed. Perhaps when all this is over and Shepard gets a chance to sit down and think, then, maybe she'll show the emotion she isn't right now.

I don't think it makes Shepard less interesting. I just think its what stands Shepard out of the pack. I mean, Heros are not normal people. Why would they react like normal people?

Your psychological analysis isn't off, I agree, given my own experiences in combat that when you are in the middle of life threatening situations it is nearly second nature for most competent soldiers to defer emotional reactivity in favor of straight logical threat analysis. This is normal. But I've seen guys drop their ****...sorry to use the word but thats what its reffered to as.

Not everyone is made of the kind of stuff that it takes to defer their fears in an emergency. John Shepard is obviously a pinnacle of soldiery, and I'm not asking him to fall apart....I'm just asking him to actually realize the things that have occured to him. He's not just comparmentalizing emotions in emergencies hes got his entire personality locked behind doors in his brain and its all go, no quit, lets save the universe marine!

Hard to visualize a person like this, in reality, I've never met one.

Dude, everything you say is "my experience as a writer has shown me..." "my experience as a combat veteran has shown me..." and you're going off on voice actors being robotic?  Blogga, please...

The simple answer to your problem is that this story is not naturalistic fiction, and that's one of the most appealing things about it.   You're not playing a game to take on the role of an every-man, you're taking on the role of an EXCEPTIONAL person who acts exceptionally.

I don't actually have a blog, I do a lot of writing, I am a veteran with combat experience, I'm also an independent game developer. These are simply personal points of reference I put into the discussion.

John Shepard isn't exceptional, other than the whole Lazarus routine, hes completely ambivalent to everything he has experienced, thats not exceptional thats delusional.

If this were naturalistic fiction, yes that would be the case, but it's not.  This is speculative and fantastic fiction.  Shepard is picked to be a Spectre in the first place because he represents the best of humanity.  The best of humanity does not cry like a little baby about things that go wrong in life.  Over 2000 years of western philosophy under the dominance of Greco-Roman or englightenment/neo-classical values and mores holds stoics as the pinnacle of exceptional, disciplined individuals.  Shepard is stoic.  Are you also going to say Marcus Aurellius or Ben Jonson or Pliny the Elder (a stoic naturalist who reportedly casually sailed a fleet of Roman warships into the bay of Naples as Vesuvius was erupting so that he could document the phenomenon)  who were all real people were also delusional?  What about Orthodox priests who were tortured and maimed in Siberian gulags and cancer wards during the Soviet Union who emerged to freedom and remain completely placid and apparently unaffected by their hardships?  What about Douglas MacArthur?  The dude wipes out the Bonus Army during the depression, gets routed from the phillipines to see thousands of his men put on a death march, nearly gets blown to bits in leyte gulf, gets whipped in korea only to pull off a miracle at inchon, nearly gets into a nuclear war with china, and then gets fired by his president... and the dude is just like "ah it's alright good soldiers don't die, they just fade away..." I guess our 5 star general was delusional!

 I honestly think you need to back down a few notches and realize not all people think like you and/or your peers.  And even if they DID think like you, it's yet another ridiculous assumption to believe that they all behave and express themselves in a manner identical to how you and/or your peers would in similar situations.  It is also a value judgment on your part -- one which I find kind of offensive, personally -- that you believe those who maintain their composure and behave exceptional under the most circumstances and situations are "delusional".

and the problem with the whole "i'm an experienced..." or I'm a veteran of... or "I'm an experienced game designer..." etc. etc. etc. is that you come off like that dude in Beavis and Butthead whose like "you can't do this to me! I'm a veteran of 4 forign wars!"  or some kind of d-bag college student who flings credentials around like "oh i have a degree in business, let me tell you why your store  sucks and I could run it way, way better..."

Modifié par DuffyMJ, 09 mars 2010 - 10:24 .

[SkywardDescent]

Its because the player would rather learn about the squadmates through experience, than sit there reading his own biography...

[Thunder74]

As someone already said in this post, in no certain terms, Shepards character has to be neutral. Bioware has no idea how you perceive your Shepard. he could be hard as stone, he could be soft and caring, he could be like the gunnery sarg from FMJ. I think his voice acting needs to mantain a neutral tone because even in your paragon/renegade moments, its hard to tell how you perceive it.



I have also found, personally, that Playing the male Shepard as more paragon and playing the female Shepard as more renegade seems to come across a bit better with the actors tones. But thats an opinion and how I perceive it.

[SLPr0]

[quote]DuffyMJ wrote...
If this were naturalistic fiction, yes that would be the case, but it's not.  This is speculative and fantastic fiction.  Shepard is picked to be a Spectre in the first place because he represents the best of humanity.  The best of humanity does not cry like a little baby about things that go wrong in life.  Over 2000 years of western philosophy under the dominance of Greco-Roman or englightenment/neo-classical values and mores holds stoics as the pinnacle of exceptional, disciplined individuals.  Shepard is stoic.  Are you also going to say Marcus Aurellius or Ben Jonson or Pliny the Elder (a stoic naturalist who reportedly casually sailed a fleet of Roman warships into the bay of Naples as Vesuvius was erupting so that he could document the phenomenon)  who were all real people were also delusional?  What about Orthodox priests who were tortured and maimed in Siberian gulags and cancer wards during the Soviet Union who emerged to freedom and remain completely placid and apparently unaffected by their hardships?  What about Douglas MacArthur?  The dude wipes out the Bonus Army during the depression, gets routed from the phillipines to see thousands of his men put on a death march, nearly gets blown to bits in leyte gulf, gets whipped in korea only to pull off a miracle at inchon, nearly gets into a nuclear war with china, and then gets fired by his president... and the dude is just like "ah it's alright good soldiers don't die, they just fade away..." I guess our 5 star general was delusional![/quote]

Marcus Aurellius was also, in the eyes of some historians, somewhat paranoid, prone to ill health, had a brother, Lucius Verus who was an addict and a womanizer and while much lauded for doing the best he could for Rome under the circumstances he ruled it under, was also quite willing to allow the persecution of Christians under Roman rule. As stoic as he may come off in history I am sure this is a man of much worry and doubt in reality.

Pliny the Elder, oft quoted as the greatest naturalist philosopher of the Roman era actually died at Vesuvius while attempting to rescue a friend. He did not sail a ship into the bay of Naples to simply observe it, your facts are wrong here he never married, he adopted a son, it is of some theories that Pliny the Elder was homosexual. Thus his adoption of his sisters son as his successor and heir. And the reason he was a scion of his family. He was to all historical reports fat and prone to over eating in his later life. For all his achievement as a naturalist, misquoting his final accomplishment in life does little really.

To answer the final example, MacArthur was delusional. Given his life history and all indications of his unrepentant nature. We're talking here about a general so tempermental that he was contemplating resigning his commission and responsibility to the military forces he was responsible for, when ordered to retreat to Australia, to stay and fight the Japanese in the Phillipines as part of the resistance, he also took bribes from President Quezon as did several of his senior officers. He was also a key figure in the exoneration of Emperor Hirohito and many Japanese figures involved in the development of germ warfare used against US Troops in the war. Directly exonerating all senior figures while nearly 4000 officers and junior officers were imprisoned or put to death for the war crimes these figures ordered or enabled. As unrepentant as he was in his questioning of Truman's peace efforts, which got him removed from command, and his unrepentant nature before Congress where he said "Old soldiers never die...they just fade away." is belied by ruminations and doubts in his own memoirs. MacArthur was not a stoic robot, he was a tempermental firebrand general who in later life in his memoirs stated the following:

"By profession I am a soldier and take pride in that fact. But I am
prouder—infinitely prouder—to be a father. A soldier destroys in order
to build; the father only builds, never destroys. The one has the
potentiality of death; the other embodies creation and life. And while
the hordes of death are mighty, the battalions of life are mightier
still. It is my hope that my son, when I am gone, will remember me not
from the battle but in the home repeating with him our simple daily
prayer."

So even MacArthur, in your example, is completely shallow as to who MacArthur was as a man in reality.
[/quote]

[quote]
 I honestly think you need to back down a few notches and realize not all people think like you and/or your peers.  And even if they DID think like you, it's yet another ridiculous assumption to believe that they all behave and express themselves in a manner identical to how you and/or your peers would in similar situations.  It is also a value judgment on your part -- one which I find kind of offensive, personally -- that you believe those who maintain their composure and behave exceptional under the most circumstances and situations are "delusional".
[/quote]

Maintaining your composure under dire circumstances is not unusual or delusional people do it all the time, soldiers, fire fighters, emergency workers, what is unusual or delusional is to be able to absorb as much trauma as Shepard has, without it affecting you at all. You mistakenly believe I'm calling people that are able to buckle down when the **** hits the fan and get the job done delusional, thats hardly the case, but buckle down and get the job done while the **** hits the fan for 5 to 10 years in duration....you will not be the same man or woman you were when you started. This is an ineffable fact....not a value judgment. 

There will be marks left in your psychology, physical scars, emotional and sometimes emotional-physiological responses that are an associated affect of long term stress exposure.  Not everyone exhibits their reactions in the same ways but the lack of any incidence of reaction at all is very small. The Veterans Administration Health Benefits program, while providing healthcare to veterans of all types, has one of the largest psychiatric care initiatives in the United States and is per patient, the largest single distributor of psychiatric medications and treatement in the United States.

Thats not a value judgment thats a fact. Period. You're welcome to check it if you like.

[quote]
and the problem with the whole "i'm an experienced..." or I'm a veteran of... or "I'm an experienced game designer..." etc. etc. etc. is that you come off like that dude in Beavis and Butthead whose like "you can't do this to me! I'm a veteran of 4 forign wars!"  or some kind of d-bag college student who flings credentials around like "oh i have a degree in business, let me tell you why your store  sucks and I could run it way, way better..."
[/quote]

I often find it curious that people find it offensive that bringing ones experience or qualifications into a dicussion relevant to them illicits hostility. But then I also run into people who get mad at me for using words with more than three syllables cause I'm somehow thinking I'm "better than them" simply for communicating as I would naturally.

We are debating here, the lack of depth and personality of a soldier in a story we all agree we like quite a bit. I've done some writing, I am by no means a professional but I am fairly proficient in regards to developing stories and characters. I am also an independent game designer, familiar with the work behind presenting a story in the format as its being presented here, and I am also a veteran of the United States Military with combat experience. I don't see why these things are offensive to you, as I feel they at least give me creedence for my own point of view.

That doesn't mean you have to agree with me. It just means I'm not some 13 year old kid on the internet trying to tell people who Commander Shepard should be, without any real frame of reference on who Commander Shepard would be.

You're really derailing the thread though and getting fairly personal with me, which I'd like to ask that you cease doing. Theres been a lot of good discussion in this thread, you haven't added to it, either on the pro, or con side of the debate, you have, really, only added negativity and are right on the edge of trolling the thread. So if you don't agree with me, thats fine, you don't have to, but you need to learn how to debate without hostility. Or I'm simply going to ignore you from here.

Modifié par SLPr0, 10 mars 2010 - 09:23 .

[XWAU_Forceflow]

SLPr0 wrote...

We are debating here, the lack of depth and personality of a soldier in a story we all agree we like quite a bit. I've done some writing, I am by no means a professional but I am fairly proficient in regards to developing stories and characters. I am also an independent game designer, familiar with the work behind presenting a story in the format as its being presented here, and I am also a veteran of the United States Military with combat experience. I don't see why these things are offensive to you, as I feel the at least give me a creedence for my own point of view.

On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Problem is that you describe yourself as the perfectly qualified person to comment on every aspect of this thread. Yet for none of these experiences you have there is an actual example.

I've done my share of writing, too. Yet I would never ever call myself actually qualified on the subject. I have never published anything and I have no degree in writing.

It would help if people actually had the chance to look at some of your work as a writer or game designer. Same goes for your military career, what does combat experience actually mean?
I am not saying you're lying, all I am saying is that it is completely pointless to throw those 'experiences' in the mix if nobody can actually evaluate them. (Thus most people will simply see them as useless bragging or even lying...)

Modifié par XWAU_Forceflow, 10 mars 2010 - 09:32 .

[SLPr0]

XWAU_Forceflow wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

We are debating here, the lack of depth and personality of a soldier in a story we all agree we like quite a bit. I've done some writing, I am by no means a professional but I am fairly proficient in regards to developing stories and characters. I am also an independent game designer, familiar with the work behind presenting a story in the format as its being presented here, and I am also a veteran of the United States Military with combat experience. I don't see why these things are offensive to you, as I feel the at least give me a creedence for my own point of view.

On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Problem is that you describe yourself as the perfectly qualified person to comment on every aspect of this thread. Yet for none of these experiences you have there is an actual example.

I've done my share of writing, too. Yet I would never ever call myself actually qualified on the subject. I have never published anything and I have no degree in writing.

It would help if people actually had the chance to look at some of your work as a writer or game designer. Same goes for your military career, what does combat experience actually mean?
I am not saying you're lying, all I am saying is that it is completely pointless to throw those 'experiences' in the mix if nobody can actually evaluate them. (Thus most people will simply see them as useless bragging or even lying...)

Well I wasn't aware I was required to provide references on a game forum post. Some of my writing capability is displayed on my own website which supports the role playing game community I've been working on for the last five years. I'm not going to link it directly because I don't want to be seen as advertising or attempting to promote my own work in the BioWare social environment, if you dig through my details you'll find it though.

Far as my military history, I suppose I could scan my DD214 for you all. I keep a copy of it in my wallet after all. But again, why does everything have to be evaluated anyways? Sure people lie on the internet, why would I bother lying in regards to my life experience simply to "win an argument" on a forum? Seems like a waste of time to me.

I'm not a rock star, I'm not a millionaire, I'm not even that attractive, though my girlfriend appears to think otherwise. I don't drive a Lamborghini, I probably smoke too much, my diet is horrible and I don't exercise half as much as I used to or I should. I have a slightly receding hairline I'm fighting pretty hard with Rogaine and Nioxin and diagnosed PTSD related anxiety which I take a mild benzodiazapine sedative for daily because all other treatement plans have failed to address the issue.

I mean I've got no delusions on what I am and what I'm not. I understand your point, but I don't speak on things I don't know anything about, the internet is full of people who do and thats a given. But even in the post I was responding to, I know nothing of the Siberian Gulags, so I didn't address them, thats the kind of person I am, if I don't know anything about something, I don't stand around acting like I do.

Nor do I present myself as anything other than what I am. Flaws and all.

[Phobius9]

If we can drag this back on topic, one thing i would argue that as a RPG I have to identify and empathise with the character I'm supposed to "be" i.e Shepard. I appreciate that Bioware couldn't make a character that EVERY player would like, but it does seem to me that there are a few basic options that they could have added in to make Shepards appeal more universal.



I agree with pretty much everything SLPr0 says, actually. I find it harder to identify with someone who shows little no no emotion other than anger, etc than I would with someone who acts a little more human.



I understand the thinking behind a "blank slate" that allows me to play MY Shepard, but saying "if you want a Shepard that acts like X, then you should just imagine it" seems a bit of cop-out. The whole idea of a RPG is playing a ROLE. I understand that some aspects have to assumed or imagined, but as I said before, for a games designer that has always introduced emotional attachment into its games, why should I have to imagine that for the one payer I should feel closest to: Shepard?



Again, give us some choices. When Kelly asked us how we felt about meeting Ash or Kaiden, we got to briefly express some emotion on the subject, and I thought that was quite refreshing. It made Shepard more human, and therefore more believable, and therefore easier to identify with, and therefore MY Shepard rather than A Shepard. See?

[SLPr0]

Luc0s wrote...

SLPr0 wrote...

We are debating here, the lack of depth and personality of a soldier in a story we all agree we like quite a bit. I've done some writing, I am by no means a professional but I am fairly proficient in regards to developing stories and characters. I am also an independent game designer, familiar with the work behind presenting a story in the format as its being presented here, and I am also a veteran of the United States Military with combat experience. I don't see why these things are offensive to you, as I feel the at least give me a creedence for my own point of view.

You sir, are a mother f*cking Mary Sue, or atleast that's how you portray yourself here.

You as a selfproclaimed writer should know what that means. If not, go look up 'Mary Sue' on google.

I know what it means, and I believe spending your time insulting me is time you could better waste elsewhere. I am far from a "Mary Sue" as you put it,, I just have three conjunctive areas of experience which I feel give me a personal point of view on the subject matter we are discussing. What you think of me personally is irrelevant to the facts of the matter.

[smudboy]

Phobius9 wrote...

If we can drag this back on topic, one thing i would argue that as a RPG I have to identify and empathise with the character I'm supposed to "be" i.e Shepard. I appreciate that Bioware couldn't make a character that EVERY player would like, but it does seem to me that there are a few basic options that they could have added in to make Shepards appeal more universal.

I agree with pretty much everything SLPr0 says, actually. I find it harder to identify with someone who shows little no no emotion other than anger, etc than I would with someone who acts a little more human.

I understand the thinking behind a "blank slate" that allows me to play MY Shepard, but saying "if you want a Shepard that acts like X, then you should just imagine it" seems a bit of cop-out. The whole idea of a RPG is playing a ROLE. I understand that some aspects have to assumed or imagined, but as I said before, for a games designer that has always introduced emotional attachment into its games, why should I have to imagine that for the one payer I should feel closest to: Shepard?

Again, give us some choices. When Kelly asked us how we felt about meeting Ash or Kaiden, we got to briefly express some emotion on the subject, and I thought that was quite refreshing. It made Shepard more human, and therefore more believable, and therefore easier to identify with, and therefore MY Shepard rather than A Shepard. See?

Totally.  If they can character arc side character that have nothing to do with the main plot, they can do so with the protagonist.

Ditto with the actual chosen background story on Shepard.  The whole Akuze/Cerberus tie in was a horribly lost opportunity.  What, they can't do a few (6?) little backstory and dialog options to explore Shepard's past (what he's known for that the player chose, aside from the hero of ME1), and know what people think about that?  This is one of the main reasons why Tali is so likable -- she remembers 1) the geth data you gave her, 2) what (and how) you did on Feros, 3) whether you let Kaidan/Ash die in Virmire.

And the argument that "imagine it" is ridiculous.  This is a story.  Give us the basic storytelling elements that make us create drama.  Characterization, BioWare!

[cutthecameras]

I can't speak for Sheploo as I have never played a single playthrough as John Shepard but I will say that I think Meer and Hale's VA is as good as it can be given the extreme open-ended nature of this script. If any other actor were presented with this script, they would be challenged, regardless of skill. As a rookie to VA work Meer has surprised me in tackling this script, though I prefer Hale's take on the character.

OP your view...It's really very subjective as I'm sure others have told you by now. Given the massive nature of customization and nonexistent cannon the protagonist has to exhibit some form of "modesty"...indeed, they have to if we are to give a crap about our allies. It's a testament to how well Bioware has succeeded that you seem to care more about your crew than you do about Shepard (yourself). 

I actually like that my character is strong enough to seem almost inhuman, there is conflict but it's buried quite deep. And there's a certain mystery to exactly how much Cerberus has upgraded Shepard; there may be more going on in that head than she herself knows. Perhaps even something keeping her from going into shock? But I try not to make excuses for it, I simply put myself in the characters' shoes as best as I can. When I heard the Galaxy News announcement concerning Hannah Shepard for example, I stopped short to listen intently: I was shocked to hear about Shepard's mother, and I think that conveyed nicely to how Shepard (on the screen) stopped mid-jog.

There are moments in the game where I feel unstable emotion coming to the forefront, like an old scar reopening. Shepard's terrified voice when she finds Garrus covered in his own blood, the way she adamantly defends Tali at her trial, always when her words stray towards the past my Shepard seems a bit shaken by it, and sometimes enraged. The way Hale says "I sacrificed human lives to save this council!" in particular, it was definitely a highlight for me.

There is more they could have done with the very diverse character backgrounds, they definitely pulled that off better in part 1, but I think the challenge of part 2 was to tie it in with part 3; and as a bridge to the conclusion I think it does a pretty solid job. We'll just have to see what they do in the next game. Bioware likes to say that Shepard is not really a custom character, that he is his own person and what not, but I think it's quite soulless to say that actually. Fact is most of us have created a Shepard that means something to us personally and if it weren't for that Mass Effect would be a dark mockery of itself. 

Modifié par cutthecameras, 10 mars 2010 - 02:23 .

[Blackveldt]

Luc0s wrote...

It's not what you are that portrays you as a mary-sue, it's how you puth it. I happen to be a 'game art&animation' student, but you don't see me using that to strengthen my arguments anywhere on this forum.
I mean, do you honestly think anyone on the internet, on a Mass Effect forum is gonna give a damn about your proffesions, which you claim you're good at?

NEWSFLASH: No-one cares and thinking that saying you're a write AND a game-designer AND an ex-veteran gives your arguments any more weight or strength is just silly. Anyone can write a fan-fic and claim he/she's a writer.
Unless you can proof you're indeed all 3 of those AND you're good, no one is gonna take you serious.

Jesus Christ.  All you have to do is say that he's using a fallacious argument called 'Appeal to Authority' and be done with it.  I don't expect gamers on Internet forums to know how to debate properly, but injecting your over-enthusiastic and emotional insults and quips simply turns a civil conversation into basic flaming.  In fact, asking him to 'prove' (which is a ridiculous notion) that he possesses such background and skills only affirms that his fallacious argument is valid WHEN IT'S NOT.  Finally, saying that nobody "[gives] a damn about [his] professions," when you have clearly
shown that you do, rather nullifies your statement.

I may not take a person who uses fallacious arguments very seriously, but even worse is someone who argues emotionally and personally; at that point, logic and reasoning have become an afterthought.

[superimposed]

Blackveldt wrote...

Luc0s wrote...

It's not what you are that portrays you as a mary-sue, it's how you puth it. I happen to be a 'game art&animation' student, but you don't see me using that to strengthen my arguments anywhere on this forum.
I mean, do you honestly think anyone on the internet, on a Mass Effect forum is gonna give a damn about your proffesions, which you claim you're good at?

NEWSFLASH: No-one cares and thinking that saying you're a write AND a game-designer AND an ex-veteran gives your arguments any more weight or strength is just silly. Anyone can write a fan-fic and claim he/she's a writer.
Unless you can proof you're indeed all 3 of those AND you're good, no one is gonna take you serious.

Jesus Christ.  All you have to do is say that he's using a fallacious argument called 'Appeal to Authority' and be done with it.  I don't expect gamers on Internet forums to know how to debate properly, but injecting your over-enthusiastic and emotional insults and quips simply turns a civil conversation into basic flaming.  In fact, asking him to 'prove' (which is a ridiculous notion) that he possesses such background and skills only affirms that his fallacious argument is valid WHEN IT'S NOT.  Finally, saying that nobody "[gives] a damn about [his] professions," when you have clearly
shown that you do, rather nullifies your statement.

I may not take a person who uses fallacious arguments very seriously, but even worse is someone who argues emotionally and personally; at that point, logic and reasoning have become an afterthought.

Also: Anyone who's ever written anything at any point in time is a writer. See that five year old kid writing about mud rabbits who eat chocolate marshmellows and **** rainbows? He's a writer.

[ODST 3]

I wouldn't mind him showing a bit more emotion, but it's a hell of a lot better than the blank and emotionless PC from Dragon Age: Origins.

[Gabey5]

we all know shep is boring

[SirHaxelot]

In case you haven't noticed, Commander Shepard is YOU. Therefore you are the least interesting person on the Normandy, SLPr0.

[Blackveldt]

Luc0s wrote...

I may have made my comment from an emotional perspective, but only in a sense that I'm just done with people who act as if they have more credentials to talk about a specific topic then others.
No one cares he's a writer or game-designer, as long as he doesn't have some good books published or worked on some great games (games with only 1/10th of the awesomeness from Mass Effect is good enough for me).
Is it seriously that strange that people want names, links or examples (in other words: proof) when someone is gonna shout he knows what he's talking about because he's a writer and game-designer himself? Do you seriously think it's that strange?
Besides, don't forget this is the internet, where anyone can be anything. Anyone can write a fan-fic and claim he/she's a writer, but that doesn't make his/her argument any more valid. Quite the opposite, it's gonna raise questions and people are gonna post "pix or it didn't happen!" (you know what I mean).

Sometimes it's just better to leave stuff like "I know what I'm talking about because I'm a writer myself" out of your arguments, or else be ready to show some examples, because it's the internet, people are not gonna believe you.


PS: To actually comment on the OP's arguments: No, I do not agree with him. I grew emotionally attached to my (John) Shepard, so for me BioWare did a good job. But I can understand not everyone likes the way Commander Shepard is handeled in ME1 and ME2. But then again, I don't see how BioWare else should have handeled it than the way they did right now.

No, it's not strange for people to want valid sources, but that was not my point.  My point was that you stated that his supposed background and credentials did not matter.  Then you asked for them.  Either they matter to you or they don't; you cannot have it both ways.

I think what everyone is forgetting is that Shepard is largely portrayed and interpreted by the voice actors themselves.  It is more their character than ours.  So when I played femShep, I had absolutely no problem with her--she is my Shepard and I've become attached to her.  Why?  Because the way I might say things or react to things are more in alignment with how Hale portrays her.  At Tali's trial, I was upset with how everyone treated Tali and Hale's performance showed this brilliantly; with Conrad Verner, I was exasperated and Hale nailed this emotion.  MaleShep, on the other hand, interpreted and acted out his role very differently, remaining rather stoic and cardboard-like at moments that I personally felt required more of an emotional reaction.  In other words, Meer's voice did not fit how I felt about the given situation; therefore, I hated being maleShep.  And I believe this is the point that SLPr0 is making/wants to make.  SLPr0 may not be happy with the writing, but I'm betting he simply doesn't like how Meer interpreted Shepard because, let's face it--even if the writers added more intimate lines/moments for maleShep, Meer would still recite them in his same single-toned voice.

However, I am still in huge favor of such moments like the 'locker-break-down' incident in ME1.  That's perhaps another issue that requires some attention.  Considering that it was a significant moment marking Shepard's vulnerability and exasperation--even hopelessness--I'd say it's almost out of character that Shepard be so unemotional in ME2.

[Halmiriliath]

SirHaxelot wrote...

In case you haven't noticed, Commander Shepard is YOU. Therefore you are the least interesting person on the Normandy, SLPr0.

Trite comments like this don't really serve any purpose. Civility doesn't cost anything, so please refrain from insulting posters.

Back on topic, I think those that argue that Shepard is an empty vessel to whom we give character make a good point - I know that's how I played my characters on Baldur's Gate. The difference there, however, is that Baldur's Gate provides much more opportunities to infuse some of yourself into the character - multiple (awesome and scary) nightmare sequences, squad mates inquiring into your past/health, opportunities to discuss your predicament from different perspectives etc. - than Mass Effect 2 does. Even if it's not much, we still need something to use, or else I feel like I'm grasping at straws trying to attach some degree of individuality to him/her.  

Modifié par Halmiriliath, 10 mars 2010 - 04:10 .

[Blackveldt]

Luc0s wrote...

It would matter if he could show he's indeed a good and respected writer and/or game-designer. As long as he doesn't, it's not gonna matter or strengthen his arguments.

And even if he was a respectable writer/game-designer, that doesn't automatically make his points valid and right. Like I said, I don't agree with the OP.

If she floats, she's a witch; if she drowns, she's innocent.  I'm uncertain as to whether this point is worth pursuing anymore.

But let's not turn this into another femShep v.s maleShep or Hale v.s Meer discussion again. We've already seen enough of those on this forum and face it, both maleShep and femShep have their own pro's and con's. In the end, it all comes to personal preference.

That drains me just thinking about it.

Personally, I think Shepard (male or female, doesn't matter) does show some emotional scars from time to time, sometimes directly linked to his past, especially Renegade Shepard (though I prefer to play Paragon most of the time).

But I agree, we need more scenes like the locker-scene from ME1 after the Normandy got grounded!

Mm, I'm almost worried that Bioware is kind of rushing to get ME3 out.  On the one hand, I'm rather ecstatic; but on the other, I'm hoping it won't come at a price.  I'd rather wait longer and get an epic, fully-fleshed work of art than an ME3 that is released sooner, but lacks for content, etc.  Bit of a non-sequitur, but this is always at the forefront of my mind I suppose.

[Apollo Starflare]

I agree... to an extent. Shepard's character does suffer somewhat in comparison to the rich development many of her team mates get in ME2, however it does get a push in a few places however small they may seem (discussions of her mental health, meals with Kelly, the fact she took her helmet as a memento of the Normandy crash... Little details).



This would be improved ten fold if they managed to add two things:

-More 'background' related dialogue. There was a fair bit in ME1, even quests based around Shep's history, however ME2 is lacking in this department. Maybe chatting to a team mate something comes up where a Colonist Shep can mention her own experiences etc. Similar thing applies to ME1 events: How it affected Shepard as a person wasn't discussed quite enough for me.

-Give Shepard a loyalty mission. Bit late now, as ME3 will no doubt not have loyalty missions (or very few?), however I feel giving Shepard a detailed loyalty mission in ME2 would have been an interesting idea. It could have been a bit like the background influenced side mission in ME1 but with ME2's flair, and maybe it could only be unlocked if you have a love interest (Shep opens up to someone etc.)



I semi-roleplayed giving Shep a loyalty mission by pretending she needed to go to the Normandy crash site to overcome her demons. Full completition means Chakwas discovers how to remove your scars.

[SLPr0]

Apollo Starflare wrote...

I agree... to an extent. Shepard's character does suffer somewhat in comparison to the rich development many of her team mates get in ME2, however it does get a push in a few places however small they may seem (discussions of her mental health, meals with Kelly, the fact she took her helmet as a memento of the Normandy crash... Little details).

This would be improved ten fold if they managed to add two things:
-More 'background' related dialogue. There was a fair bit in ME1, even quests based around Shep's history, however ME2 is lacking in this department. Maybe chatting to a team mate something comes up where a Colonist Shep can mention her own experiences etc. Similar thing applies to ME1 events: How it affected Shepard as a person wasn't discussed quite enough for me.
-Give Shepard a loyalty mission. Bit late now, as ME3 will no doubt not have loyalty missions (or very few?), however I feel giving Shepard a detailed loyalty mission in ME2 would have been an interesting idea. It could have been a bit like the background influenced side mission in ME1 but with ME2's flair, and maybe it could only be unlocked if you have a love interest (Shep opens up to someone etc.)

I semi-roleplayed giving Shep a loyalty mission by pretending she needed to go to the Normandy crash site to overcome her demons. Full completition means Chakwas discovers how to remove your scars.

These are valid personal ways of giving Shepard depths from a personal role play perspective. Nothing wrong with them and I can appreciate them for how they're applied.

Regardless of the derailing of the topic I still believe that there are a lot of points in ME2 where Shepard just does not react to things he should most definitely react to with more than fact finding questions and an instant acceptance, his/her death and ressurection is one of them, the interactions with previous LI's needed more depth between them and Shepards own reactions, the fact that you can't go back to the Citadel and put Anderson on the spot for putting your former LI in danger and not telling you.

Lots of little places where the character could have cracked and shown their human flaws, they didn't. Which is a lot of where my debate on this subject comes from.