As Special As You Make Them

Ryder: Reporting in, I have been able to make a outpost on a garden planet.

Older Ryder: That's nice. I am just back from settled 5 garden planets, made peace with 2 alien civilizations AND took out an enemy fleet. But just keep it up. *pat on head*

Ryder: 

Any protagonist IS special by definition.  If they weren't it wouldn't be a very interesting story.  

Shepard started out an exceptional human being with their backstory.  But yes contact with the beacon made Shepard special, for the reasons specified.  

ME2 was weird in that yes the Alliance and Council shunted Shepard aside, yet TIM blathers on about how Shepard is unique, not because of what Shep experienced "but in what you represent"  That's nonsense.  Shepard is unique thanks to what he or she knows and experienced.  And that was utterly squandered as TIM's errand boy.

In ME3, Shepard ends up swinging the other way.  Becoming some kind of nigh-mystical savior "Save us, Shepard!  What should we do!?"  They were halfway to calling Shep "The Shepard" by the the time they hit Earth anyway.

I think people want their characters to be "special" in what they accomplish.  Not in some vague mystical "Chosen One" manner.  They want to earn being special.

BTW, I think even in Refuse Shepard is referred to as "The Shepard"

Are you under the impression that's somehow the topic of this thread? That the question of whether the player character is uniquely marked is connected to their success level? 

If there is no connection... then I would say Shepard was in no way "uniquely marked" by the beacon.  The beacon gave Shepard no additional powers in the game... no magic bullet that one shots reapers, no additional ability to predict the future, no additional ability to even convince the council of the existence of the Reapers.  All it did was convince Shepard that the Reapers existed and that they were coming back.  He/she had information... i.e. had read a book no one else had the opportunity to read... but that's it.

As for being an N7... well Shepard EARNED that prior to the game starting... by completing a rigorous training course.

Did being brought back from the dead give Shepard any "special" treatment? No one was seen throwing themselves down at Shepard's feet declaring him/her a God for that.  If anything, his/her friend (Ashley/Kaidan) reacted with complete selfish disdain... They had a "Why didn't you call me and tell me you were working with Cerberus so I could ream your ass out then rather than just now here on Horizon" attitude.

The "special-ness" (chosen one fantasy) of Shepard is more in the players head than in the game itself... and before you go on about him/her being called "The Shepard," I will remind you THAT did not happen until AFTER the game had ended.  Since players generally do not want to play "loser" protagonists... they will invariably make their PCs "special" in their own minds regardless of what is written by the developers.  Over the course of ME3, Shepard earns status by fetching things for various people and through his/her charisma... so you've essentially got what you're asking for in ME:A... and yet are complaining about it in ME3.

Like many posters here, I'd like to have a break from more "special by circumstance" protagonists in favour of someone who is normal and achieves their reputation through their own character and actions. I don't have anything against those stories, but I'd like a change.

Personally, I never found Shepard as special as some did, simply because the Cypher only came up a couple of times, mostly in the first game, the resurrection barely enhanced them, and they were already famous when ME1 started. I'm not saying those things weren't there, but I always thought Shep's charisma, willpower, and natural leadership were more important in-story. Like Hawke. The Inquisitor was a bit much with the awesome power of the Anchor and being a religious icon to boot. Sure, Shepard has been called Space Jesus, but Quizzy was literally Fantasy Jesus.

So next round, let's take one of DA2's more interesting aspects and expand on that. Let's have someone who starts small (whose father had some degree of notoriety, and who has a sibling), then slowly gains reputation and influence as the story progresses over the first game and beyond. Sometime through the game, possibly after the first act, they might be instrumental in doing something heroic (whether they have a heroic personality or not), like saving a colony from a Khet assault. "Ryder, savior of Eden Prime [something], hero of The Citadel [insert planet name]!" So then they'll be about on par with how Shep was perceived before the Prothean Beacon or stopping Saren. By the end of the first game, they'll be equivalent to Shepard after ME1. Et cetera.

But I want them to do it not because of luck, but because of skill, whether than means intelligence, combat-proficiency, negotiating skills, whatever. Something about them, not a fluke occurrence that could have happened to anyone, like getting the Cypher or the Mark. Maybe they'll even acquire something "special" in a subsequent game, and if they establish themselves before that, I won't even mind. Which, again, is partly why I didn't mind Shep's Cypher: they already did noteworthy things themselves before getting it, already proved themselves.

Let's not go there.


Different classes have differences in carrying capacity because of tech, not inherent strength.
Okay, even ignoring the sexist overtones that would cause (sorry, I don't buy the "not weaker, just different" thing), I don't think that would make sense within the lore. I'm not calling you sexist, by the way, I just think that if they did that, the game would appear that way.

Every Alliance soldier goes through mandatory genetic augmentation, the extent of which is not clear. These soldiers also wear power armour, which augments their abilities as well, even more if ME fields are used (though it's not confirmed exactly how). Carrying around 5 small-arms and a heavy weapon was never even something close to an issue for female Shepard before, nor was carrying 5 weapons for any other character in ME1, so why should it be for female Ryder? The weight mechanic makes no sense anyway, it's just a gameplay thing. Guns should be very light in ME, but that's ignoring the ME fields every gun has and uses to operate, which could easily negate the entire mass of the weapon, and thus the difficulty of carrying it.

With strength coming from many factors that don't include the body itself (armour, strength enhancers, biotics, mass effect fields (indirectly) etc.), I can't imagine the difference between a fit male and a fit female making any substantial difference in combat in the ME verse.

I've never seen an example of a smaller character with a smaller hitbox actually working well. And the size difference isn't very large anyway, so female Ryder would be at quite a disadvantage there. Regardless, I don't want to have any gameplay changes depending on which gender I want my character to be. The only thing that should change is itself. It should be about roleplaying, not gameplay.

Aside from the fact that that wouldn't make sense, that type of thing would only possibly be good in a dual-protagonist game where you alternate between people. It's not the same in a roleplaying game where you make a single character. It limits choices. And actually, it does sort of make her look weak, yes. "Why not do the same for gender?" It's not at all comparable to picking a class, because each gender can pick any class. It isn't comparable because it shouldn't make any significant difference anyway. It's not comparable because class is mostly a gameplay choice, while gender is an RP choice.

As much as I wouldn't like gameplay changes based on gender-selection, roleplaying depending on that would be infinitely worse. Not to mention that I think having things like diplomacy and bonding be worse for a male protagonist, for no other reason that because he's male, is a huge problem. I'll leave it at that for now. Further, it's a crime against roleplaying. A player shouldn't have to choose between playing a character as the gender they want to and... well, anything. It should be its own choice, separated from any other choices. Each should have equal opportunity and skills, as it currently is.

Having things be this different doesn't do anyone any good, for roleplaying or for being progressive, which, like it or not, is something Bioware tries to be. At that point, you might as well have set personalities - no, you already do. It's no longer an RPG, it's a shooter with RPG elements. That's not what ME started as, and it's not what I'd like it to end up as.

Uh... It already is more than "adding hips and breasts to character design and swapping out voice actors" (and I'll ignore the androcentrism there - wait, I technically failed), it's choosing gender. Choosing the gender of your character is its own meaningful RP choice, it doesn't need to be anything more than it currently is. It shouldn't influence personality, just as choosing class shouldn't. Class/gender recognition is a separate discussion entirely. Luckily, I doubt Bioware is going to do this, though, so it's academic.

Shepard was definitely special. Just look at how the entire Alliance sat on their hands in ME2. Also, in ME3 Shepard was the only one who could stop bring all the races together and stop the reapers.