Now, before people start typing TLDR and proceed to make stupid accusations I will inform you of my background with Mass Effect. I played both games and usually found myself settling into a role of Paragon Infiltrator (playing renegade never really meshed with me, i always felt i was just being mean for its own sake). I ended up playing this way twice (well 3 times if you could the double playthrough in ME1), once female and once male, one of them I went OCD and got every bit of everything in the world, explored every planet, completed every quest, got all the DLC for 1st, some for the 2nd, got to max level, all loyalties/upgrades, the whole deal.
Also there may be spoilers, but if your reading this and haven't played the games I'm not really sure you would care now.
Now, I'm going to talk strictly of the between mission dialogue and such, because that and the shooting might as well be 2 different games. I've heard a lot of praise for this game about characterization and dialogue and other such stuff but I've always had a problem with that. Now, I do believe the companions are great characters, they usually are not set in their ways and how they turn out in the game is usually influenced by the way Shepard acts around them. IE Garrus can learn about how sometimes you need to bend the rules to get the job done or that regulations exist for a reason and we are no better then the people we are fighting is we disregard them. I love the supporting characters in these games.
My big problem is when it comes to Shepard. For me, the character arc for Shepard never existed. The only reason he is here is 1. We need to play as someone and 2. He's the chosen one. You may argue that Shepard's character is inserted by the player, but the problem i have with that is that you choose EVERY line he says. When you just came back from a mission where you enacted genocide to stop a future galactic war and are going to your various team members to explain you reasoning, you choose the justification for it. It could be "The risk was too great" which might be more reasonable to "Genocide is fun!" which may be the more crazy version of Shepard. This leaves only further room for the character to turn incredibly inconsistent and make decisions without any total character motive. The problem this creates is it doesn't make Shepard a character, it turns him/her into a caricature, a menagerie of cliches. A well developed character should have personalities that are consistent with a broader total character arc.
Shepard should change over the course of the game, he should learn about the difficulties the races are having, the intricacies of the galactic politics, the effects of massive-scale warfare on the individual. Instead we are thrust in to a character who, for all we know, knows absolutely everything about the universe and has all his moral decisions figured out. Shepard has no emotional investment in the broader outcome besides the extinction of all life (yeah, might wanna avoid that). The player just guides him in a variety of moral choices, directing Shepard to the next mercy/genocide decision. Now, granted, this would remove most of the moral ambiguity from the game and only polarize it further, but a compelling story doesn't need to have a good side/bad side. Now, I think the real cause for the lack of characterization of Shepard is the real lack of consequence. Massive decisions which the game tells you will have unparalleled effect on the world only seems to affect others, maybe just resulting in someone getting angry at you and whining in your ear for 8 sec between missions.
Now, here's the part where i put on my game design helmet and make suggestions about what could have been down to improve this part of them game:
1. Time Period
Something which believe could have made this much more compelling would have been having the game take place very shortly after humanity achieved mastery of the mass relays, allowing your character to witness first contact, opening regulations and even the first conflicts between the races. This would greatly improve the manner in which the intricacies of the game world are conveyed as Shepard is really oblivious to the new and exciting races. This would provide so much opportunity to really have you character make an impact on the world, as you could be the person to really show what humanity has to offer to the universe.
2. Character
Now, ask yourself this, what if the next Mass Effect (or even the previous ones) allowed you to play as any previous companion in lieu of Shepard if you so choose? Doesn't that seem much better? You choose a character who has an emotional investment in the events, an interesting past and a variety of personalities which are all consistent yet unique and fit the character much better. I know this is a lot like dragon age with origin stories, but because these characters are fleshed out you can really roleplay with them. Plus, this can help the finales of both games have more importance. The death of the citadel has more impact if you have a long history of either oppression or favor with the council. And the destruction/cleansing of the collector base might be more important when your race is/is not the primary beneficiary of the technology.
3. Choice
Imagine if the Mass Effect asked you a variety of baseline morality questions at the start and then crafts the game experience to best fit what you would do. Sure much of the choice would be gone but replace it with a system that reinforces the characters rather than pulling one together from a collection of cliches. Some say this might reduce immersion, but instead of Shepard taking mercy on a band of pirates then enacting genocide you might get a more understandable Shepard with consistent views on important morals. Plus the game still has choice, but instead of evil shep vs good shep you get a shep who believes in tough justice, or a shep who believes strongly in human domination, or mercy, or any number of unique and diametric personality traits. With the current system you are supposed to choose between 2 ideal sets, individualistic and cruel, or merciful and group oriented, but who are they codependent? Can you be a merciful hero with a strong belief in humanity being stand-alone. This system would still allow you to roleplay as evil shep and good shep, but it provides so much more ambiguity.
And so, to wrap it up, I believe Mass Effect succeeds in terms of characterization and development only in terms of its supporting cast. But in terms of setting up a character arc for the main character its fails miserably. The character is dull, not invested at all, infallible, inconsistent and cliched. On the other hand, the supporting cast is widely varied, interesting and deep, and I believe that Bioware should focus more on the existing companions instead of focusing on Shepard in the future titles (oh and believe me, there's gonna be spin offs, this is one of EA's cash cows). So what do you all think? Agree? Disagree? Just here to make a joke at my sexuality? Either way, post a comment
TL
R Go read the fucking thing
Also there may be spoilers, but if your reading this and haven't played the games I'm not really sure you would care now.
Now, I'm going to talk strictly of the between mission dialogue and such, because that and the shooting might as well be 2 different games. I've heard a lot of praise for this game about characterization and dialogue and other such stuff but I've always had a problem with that. Now, I do believe the companions are great characters, they usually are not set in their ways and how they turn out in the game is usually influenced by the way Shepard acts around them. IE Garrus can learn about how sometimes you need to bend the rules to get the job done or that regulations exist for a reason and we are no better then the people we are fighting is we disregard them. I love the supporting characters in these games.
My big problem is when it comes to Shepard. For me, the character arc for Shepard never existed. The only reason he is here is 1. We need to play as someone and 2. He's the chosen one. You may argue that Shepard's character is inserted by the player, but the problem i have with that is that you choose EVERY line he says. When you just came back from a mission where you enacted genocide to stop a future galactic war and are going to your various team members to explain you reasoning, you choose the justification for it. It could be "The risk was too great" which might be more reasonable to "Genocide is fun!" which may be the more crazy version of Shepard. This leaves only further room for the character to turn incredibly inconsistent and make decisions without any total character motive. The problem this creates is it doesn't make Shepard a character, it turns him/her into a caricature, a menagerie of cliches. A well developed character should have personalities that are consistent with a broader total character arc.
Shepard should change over the course of the game, he should learn about the difficulties the races are having, the intricacies of the galactic politics, the effects of massive-scale warfare on the individual. Instead we are thrust in to a character who, for all we know, knows absolutely everything about the universe and has all his moral decisions figured out. Shepard has no emotional investment in the broader outcome besides the extinction of all life (yeah, might wanna avoid that). The player just guides him in a variety of moral choices, directing Shepard to the next mercy/genocide decision. Now, granted, this would remove most of the moral ambiguity from the game and only polarize it further, but a compelling story doesn't need to have a good side/bad side. Now, I think the real cause for the lack of characterization of Shepard is the real lack of consequence. Massive decisions which the game tells you will have unparalleled effect on the world only seems to affect others, maybe just resulting in someone getting angry at you and whining in your ear for 8 sec between missions.
Now, here's the part where i put on my game design helmet and make suggestions about what could have been down to improve this part of them game:
1. Time Period
Something which believe could have made this much more compelling would have been having the game take place very shortly after humanity achieved mastery of the mass relays, allowing your character to witness first contact, opening regulations and even the first conflicts between the races. This would greatly improve the manner in which the intricacies of the game world are conveyed as Shepard is really oblivious to the new and exciting races. This would provide so much opportunity to really have you character make an impact on the world, as you could be the person to really show what humanity has to offer to the universe.
2. Character
Now, ask yourself this, what if the next Mass Effect (or even the previous ones) allowed you to play as any previous companion in lieu of Shepard if you so choose? Doesn't that seem much better? You choose a character who has an emotional investment in the events, an interesting past and a variety of personalities which are all consistent yet unique and fit the character much better. I know this is a lot like dragon age with origin stories, but because these characters are fleshed out you can really roleplay with them. Plus, this can help the finales of both games have more importance. The death of the citadel has more impact if you have a long history of either oppression or favor with the council. And the destruction/cleansing of the collector base might be more important when your race is/is not the primary beneficiary of the technology.
3. Choice
Imagine if the Mass Effect asked you a variety of baseline morality questions at the start and then crafts the game experience to best fit what you would do. Sure much of the choice would be gone but replace it with a system that reinforces the characters rather than pulling one together from a collection of cliches. Some say this might reduce immersion, but instead of Shepard taking mercy on a band of pirates then enacting genocide you might get a more understandable Shepard with consistent views on important morals. Plus the game still has choice, but instead of evil shep vs good shep you get a shep who believes in tough justice, or a shep who believes strongly in human domination, or mercy, or any number of unique and diametric personality traits. With the current system you are supposed to choose between 2 ideal sets, individualistic and cruel, or merciful and group oriented, but who are they codependent? Can you be a merciful hero with a strong belief in humanity being stand-alone. This system would still allow you to roleplay as evil shep and good shep, but it provides so much more ambiguity.
And so, to wrap it up, I believe Mass Effect succeeds in terms of characterization and development only in terms of its supporting cast. But in terms of setting up a character arc for the main character its fails miserably. The character is dull, not invested at all, infallible, inconsistent and cliched. On the other hand, the supporting cast is widely varied, interesting and deep, and I believe that Bioware should focus more on the existing companions instead of focusing on Shepard in the future titles (oh and believe me, there's gonna be spin offs, this is one of EA's cash cows). So what do you all think? Agree? Disagree? Just here to make a joke at my sexuality? Either way, post a comment
TL
R Go read the fucking thing
