Is Shepard more relatable than Ryder?

I don't agree.  From the very start I could make Shepard have a background of poor street urgent, orphan from a slaughtered colony or military brat brought up in the Military way.  Then I could pick what kind of person he became, war hero that saved the day, Hard arse that put his mission ahead of his men, or a tormented lone survivor.  Those are all drastically different backgrounds that shape who and what Shepard is before the game even gets started.  Then the I get to make real choices in both dailog and action that not only shape the games that come after but relationships and story events in the current game.

With Ryder, from the beginning, I am stuck with a character trying to fill Daddy's shoes and I never seem to take anything seriously.  Through the game I just can't seem to mold him/her into the type of character I want to play.  I am stuck with the Ryder they hand me.  Ok great if I am watching a movie that is cool, but it certinaly is not what I consider a good RPG character.

None of those really matter though out of being mentioned once or twice. Sure they are nice but ME ultimately came down to if you played paragon or renegade and did you let Ashley or Kadian die but even then you just playing one of two Shepards BW picked for you. 

setokaiba well lets agree to disagree. When I role played Shepard I made it a point to play him with his background in mind, I always made the dialog choices that best conformed to that type of character. It felt like I had real control of WHO Shepard was.

With Ryder I am spoon fed a character that I seem to have NO real control over. Now maybe if that character is one I want to play great, but I do NOT feel like I have ANY control over who and what Ryder is, Bioware took that from me.

This of course is all subjective so both of us can be right and both of us can be wrong, so rather then clog the discussion I will just leave it at this.

I wasn't looking for another Shepard. Since I was able to relate to my Ryder as well as I did with my Shepard character I felt that Bioware met my expectations toward the character pretty well.

Oh, I didn't think you were. I didn't mean to give that impression: sometimes I just can't help but take advantage of an opening and do a bit of ranting.  

I think a large portion of the trilogy's writing issues came from how the story was rather unplanned: however much I love it, I still consider Mass effect 2 to be filler when its story should have been a bridge between the first and third game's respective stories. If I have to rate the games, I'll always rate ME3 last because while there were some wonderful moments, there were just too much that held it down for me.

I think that's part of why I enjoy ME:A so much: it's a lovely combo of all the things I loved about the previous Mass Effect installments (with improvements) but without so many of the different problems that bogged down each experience for me. I'm not saying that ME:A has no flaws, of course, I have my own list of criticisms that I hope to see improved upon in the next game and I certainly don't think all the criticisms I've seen directed at the game are without merit.

 I think at the moment, I feel the same way about Ryder that you do about Shepard.

I can more relate to Ryder.

He was basically what a current day Army E-4 is, I've been an E-4. He's then thrust into a position he is not trained for. Personally that's easier to relate to than having to play someone who is basically what would be considered SFOD-D today.

I always preferred playing femShep but had no trouble enjoying manShep.   I just can't get into playing Sara though, the face (default or customs) just pulls me out of the experience.  I even had to play Scott as my first full playthrough.  I enjoyed it, I didn't really have any trouble connecting with him but I never had any of those 'goosebump' moments along the way.  There just wasn't any moment that stuck out for me like the Shep intro or going to the Citadel for the first time or the climactic ending that always brings a tear to my eye. 

Andromeda is just a good safe mediocre experience.  ME1 was just magic. For me anyway. 

My Youtube comment rewritten for you guys:

What he says in the video is true in the sense that the character introduction for Ryder is bad in contrast to Shepard's. This is equally a problem with the squadmates except maybe PeeBee and Jaal who randomly hop on board on the ongoing plot "just because", but I'd also argue this is a larger issue that extends across the game as a whole because the premise itself is not properly established. Yes, we're going to Andromeda, but what then? Our planet isn't viable as we thought? Too bad, but let's go and check it out. Stuff happens, we don't know who Ryder is, don't know who Liam or Cora is, as he says, we only know Daddy, and then we abruptly become the Pathfinder because he said so afterwards and there's no formal process at all. We just rush through the story, get a ship, go do Pathfinder stuff.

Compare that to Shepard who also enters an exciting incident right after he's established but then he lands on the Citadel where the larger context of the setting is established clearly to the player and THEN he becomes a Spectre. AND, as soon as he becomes a Spectre there is one clear goal: Hunt down Saren, and subtextually "Prove humanity's worth to the galaxy". Andromeda stumbles in the beginning but the record breaks as soon as you meet the Archon and then the Angara at some point, because it does not establish the goal we're working towards properly and it doesn't connect the idea of the Archon being the antagonist relating to making planets viable. Suddenly 40-50% into the crit-path the quest objective becomes "Hunt The Archon" but this is not established with reason at all at that point.

Andromeda fails at the premise because it does not set itself up properly. It's an issue that goes beyond just the fact that Ryder's significance as a protagonist isn't made clear on the first page of the script.

I enjoyed my time with Ryder and I'd hate to let go already; hate to let go of PeeBee, Cora and Jaal already, but I'm just reluctant to say BioWare should continue because they have a massive course-correction ahead of themselves unless they want to cement this saga as the equivalent to the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars but in Mass Effect. The only hope there is that I strongly enjoyed Episode III, so not all hope is lost in an ongoing series just because part 1 is a waste, but it doesn't change that there's not much that is worth referencing in terms of plot in this game. There's cracks here and there where the potential shines but there's not cohesion with the story as a whole that makes everything feel like it has a larger purpose. The biggest factors, the search for a homeworld and stopping the Archon from doing evil things don't connect until they do so contrivedly in the ending. Andromeda 2 needs to set up a better throughline for why there's Kett, why Ryder, specifically, should be the one who engages in helping the Angaran resistance and why we should spend time talking to politicians about the planet viability status. Even moreso why we should go to random planets and do things on them.

I think people who say "Shepard was a badass veteran, how is that more relateable" are missing the point of the video.

The idea is expections being set. Because Shepard was a badass veteran, it immediately informed you, the player as to what kind of character he might be. He's seen some shit so he may be serious, sardonic or anything else in between but that informs the slant of those emotions somewhat. Then you have the fact that you can set some of his history further narrowing down expectations while simultaneously getting you involved in creating and identifying with him.

Now contrast that to Ryder, who is introduced more like a blank slate. Here's the opening to Andromeda if any aren't familiar with it.



Despite the callback in visuals (PC stares out a window as main supporting character voiced by a celebrity narrates), the actual content is entirely backwards. The original Mass Effect used that opening sequence to already introduce Shepard to you. You see his face, you hear characters recount their backstory and offer opinions about it, the entire blocking, music, and visuals in that scene are meant to reveal the player character so that when you take him over it's so smooth you barely even notice. Now contrast Andromeda. Faceless protagonists in helmets (I'm guessing those are supposed to be the Ryders, for all I know it could be NPCs; lack of distinctive armor is another detail here that fails to do what the original did) and the celebrity support character merely re-iterates not only what we already know about the premise from the freakin title, but also the thing that we'll have to read in a text crawl anyway.

Then the character is "reborn" in a plain white room while other characters talk at them and they have precisely one quip as obvious as it is uninformative. This is a blank slate all the way. Except they're not, and as has been mentioned in other threads, if you intend to roleplay as anything other than "sarcasting kid", you're in for a rude awakening.

Yeah, watching this is really starting to make me feel like Andromeda needs a Plinkett level deconstruction, just based on the first five minutes.

Shepard certainly has more wish fulfilment than Ryder (she is the ultimate Mary Sue power fantasy - stop a centuries old war by shouting? Sure!). Not sure about relatable though.

I didn't like either of the Ryder twins. The sister was the worst. Their lines / wriitng is just awful, their dialog.

Then combine it with those stale dead facial animations....yep.

Some of their dialog was ok, but most just lacked the quality I thought the next installment of Mass Effect would have had.

Both seemed very late tween, or maybe early 20s. Scott Ryders facial hair was awful, ... peach fuzz.

I like Ryder better than Shepard. I've always liked rookie characters. Tom Taylorson did a spectacular job voicing him as well.