Well don't get my wrong Wyborn, I like Grunt and Javik. I just think "strong characterization" is overstating what they are. They're fun because they're one-note.
Characterization doesn't necessarily mean 'complexity'. Good characterization should allow you to extrapolate how any given character will react to a variety of situations. Grunt and Javik have that strong presence, much more so than other Bioware characters.
I mean, take Morrigan for instance. Even knowing everything there is to know about her, some of her reactions are absolutely baffling and aren't really predictable. Ditto Oghren, Kaiden, Ashley, etc. They're very weakly characterized in that sense and tend to fit into the plot more than react as they would.
They're not deep, but they are pretty strongly characterized. And those kinds of characters tend to be the ones everyone loves and remembers anyways! (See: Carth vs. HK-47)
Carth was not strongly characterized at all, he was just whiny. Like Carver.
Garrus was very strongly characterized. Garrus is probably my favorite Bioware character. HK-47 is a lot of fun! He is also extremely one-note. Yeah, that makes for a memorable character. What it doesn't make him is strongly characterized.
Merrill gets a little better when you realize that after a while, a lot of her 'I'm such a naive little thing" routine is just an act she puts on to troll people.
Well don't get my wrong Wyborn, I like Grunt and Javik. I just think "strong characterization" is overstating what they are. They're fun because they're one-note.
Characterization doesn't necessarily mean 'complexity'. Good characterization should allow you to extrapolate how any given character will react to a variety of situations. Grunt and Javik have that strong presence, much more so than other Bioware characters.
I mean, take Morrigan for instance. Even knowing everything there is to know about her, some of her reactions are absolutely baffling and aren't really predictable. Ditto Oghren, Kaiden, Ashley, etc. They're very weakly characterized in that sense and tend to fit into the plot more than react as they would.
They're not deep, but they are pretty strongly characterized. And those kinds of characters tend to be the ones everyone loves and remembers anyways! (See: Carth vs. HK-47)
Carth was not strongly characterized at all, he was just whiny. Like Carver.
Garrus was very strongly characterized. Garrus is probably my favorite Bioware character. HK-47 is a lot of fun! He is also extremely one-note. Yeah, that makes for a memorable character. What it doesn't make for is a strongly characterized character.
I think you may be missing the thrust of my point.
Strong characterization is independent of complexity is mostly what I was getting at. Its irrelevant that HK-47 is one-note; as long as he is consistently one-note and has establishing character moments, which he has in spades, he's fairly strongly characterized!
That doesn't mean Garrus isn't strongly characterized, because he is, but I think you're pointing at the wrong targets. Like, Morrigan is very weakly characterized despite being 'complex' because she lacks strong 'character moments' that define her and how she responds to situations.
Does that make sense?
EDIT: I like Merrill too, mostly because of her interactions with Carver, Varric and Isabela. Her biggest issue is that her personal plot is really poorly paced, much like Fenris, and that makes her a static character for way longer than she should be which undermines her rushed character growth and doesn't jive well with the main plot.
Z0re on
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
edited October 2012
I like Merrill for being interesting, but I'm annoyed at her choices. Her naivete actually seems pretty real, at least as far as trusting spirits goes.
Edit: wait, naivete is the wrong word. Suicidal is the one I was looking for.
She actually seems perfectly aware at the risk she's taking but doesn't seem to care about her imminent death. I think maybe Merrill just needs some counciling.
Merrill gets a little better when you realize that after a while, a lot of her 'I'm such a naive little thing" routine is just an act she puts on to troll people.
She's still bad though.
I'm romancing her right now and I found her obsession with the mirror annoying. Especially after all those evil-looking mirror loading screens. She has some of my favorite one-liners so far though, especially involving Aveline and her romance with the fellow guard. (I like that at least as a female I can keep trying to romance Aveline and it goes right over her head, playing as a female trying to romance everyone except Anders is quite fun)
I also didn't enjoy Merrill's quick dismissal of Zevran's offer. Oh well.
I like Merrill for being interesting, but I'm annoyed at her choices. Her naivete actually seems pretty real, at least as far as trusting spirits goes.
Even there, really. After Anders's Act 2 Quest
Merrill: Are you all right?
Anders:I almost killed a girl. How could I be all right?
Merrill: I'm sorry.
Anders: You're sorry? For me? This could be you! You could be the next monster threatening helpless girls!
Merrill: Anders... There's no such thing as a good spirit. There never was. All spirits are dangerous. I understood that. I'm sorry that you didn't.
As for her general attitude, some of it is legitimate, but even there...
Merrill: Ser Pounce-a-lot... who knighted him?
Anders: Is that a serious question?
Merrill: Did he have a little sword, or just his claws? I bet he had a dashing cap with a feather in it!
Anders: Would you stop making fun of my cat?
Merrill: Oh... no hat, then?
Merrill: (Giggles)
Aveline: Yes?
Merrill: Is it like you thought? It's nice, isn't it? He seems nice.
Aveline: Yes, he's very nice.
Merrill: I know! And you're so cute when you're with him! Not like normal-you at all!
Aveline: Haven't you got something unholy to do?
Merrill: No, we're following Hawke. That's important, too.
Aveline: I didn't expect you to stick around for this mess Merrill. This has nothing to do with your elves.
Merrill: Everything affects everything. We were born, a bunch of things happened, and now we're in a mess with our friends.
Aveline: That seems too simple.
Merrill: Simple is good. It sneaks up on you, makes you smile. Or it says "Hey over there!" And kills with a pin.
Aveline: Merrill?
Merrill: Simple Aveline. Not stupid.
Blackjack on
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well don't get my wrong Wyborn, I like Grunt and Javik. I just think "strong characterization" is overstating what they are. They're fun because they're one-note.
Characterization doesn't necessarily mean 'complexity'. Good characterization should allow you to extrapolate how any given character will react to a variety of situations. Grunt and Javik have that strong presence, much more so than other Bioware characters.
I mean, take Morrigan for instance. Even knowing everything there is to know about her, some of her reactions are absolutely baffling and aren't really predictable. Ditto Oghren, Kaiden, Ashley, etc. They're very weakly characterized in that sense and tend to fit into the plot more than react as they would.
They're not deep, but they are pretty strongly characterized. And those kinds of characters tend to be the ones everyone loves and remembers anyways! (See: Carth vs. HK-47)
Carth was not strongly characterized at all, he was just whiny. Like Carver.
Garrus was very strongly characterized. Garrus is probably my favorite Bioware character. HK-47 is a lot of fun! He is also extremely one-note. Yeah, that makes for a memorable character. What it doesn't make for is a strongly characterized character.
I think you may be missing the thrust of my point.
Strong characterization is independent of complexity is mostly what I was getting at. Its irrelevant that HK-47 is one-note; as long as he is consistently one-note and has establishing character moments, which he has in spades, he's fairly strongly characterized!
That doesn't mean Garrus isn't strongly characterized, because he is, but I think you're pointing at the wrong targets. Like, Morrigan is very weakly characterized despite being 'complex' because she lacks strong 'character moments' that define her and how she responds to situations.
Does that make sense?
I guess I get what you're saying but don't agree with it.
I mean I can write a character for whom every line is "I smash you now?" (or hey, how about, "enchantment!") and while audiences will strongly remember that character because he repeats the same thing a lot, that doesn't mean, to me, he's strongly characterized. There's more to strong characterization than "he responds in a way that is consistent."
People sometimes like a little broad comedy in the middle of their stark drama (I know I do), so a silly character like HK is really well suited and memorable. He's the equivalent of Margaret from Much Ado About Nothing, or the grave digger from Hamlet.
Well don't get my wrong Wyborn, I like Grunt and Javik. I just think "strong characterization" is overstating what they are. They're fun because they're one-note.
describe each of them in one note
Ha ha, Javik even does it for you dude.
Vengance unrelenting.
Grunt is FIGHT.
Javik is a person born into the middle of an apocalypse who had to leave his people behind in hope of avenging them in the future. The conditions he grew up in made him fiercely cynical and left no patience for weakness or naivete. Everything that the current cycle is going through he has seen 100x worse of. He is willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to destroy the reapers and favors force over diplomacy. He believes in the strength of civilization as a whole but doesn't care about individuals, and rarely even calls them by their actual names. He's terrified what he'll see in the memory shard, and washes his hands compulsively to avoid being overwhelmed by his super senses. He is patriotic about a Prothean empire he never knew and regards modern civilization as primitive. He comes to accept voluntary collaboration as a superior option to slavery. He has a deadpan sense of humor.
Grunt was born in a tube as a perfect krogan with pre-programmed education, but no actual experience. He doubts his own worth as an "artificial" krogan, his strength was given to him rather than earned through hardship like everyone else. Even with his education he has no idea what to do with his strength, and starts out just picking a fight with the first thing he sees. He wants a purpose to his battles and admires Shepard as a mentor because she gives him both the best enemies and the best reasons to fight them. He takes a childlike pleasure from violence, but understands what is and is not an appropriate target and sees war as a way to improve himself rather than just fighting for fighting's sake. He comes to be proud of his krogan heritage and studies great krogan leaders of the past. He loves dinosaurs and Hemingway novels.
-Tal on
+1
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I like Merrill for being interesting, but I'm annoyed at her choices. Her naivete actually seems pretty real, at least as far as trusting spirits goes.
Even there, really. After Anders's Act 2 Quest
Merrill: Are you all right?
Anders:I almost killed a girl. How could I be all right?
Merrill: I'm sorry.
Anders: You're sorry? For me? This could be you! You could be the next monster threatening helpless girls!
Merrill: Anders... There's no such thing as a good spirit. There never was. All spirits are dangerous. I understood that. I'm sorry that you didn't.
Yeah I edited my statement. She fully understands that Spirits will devour you.
Then she decides to entrust herself to a spirit to fix the mirror, guaranteeing her death. Lucky for her, I guess, that her elder died in her place.
Merrill: Cheer up, Fenris! This isn't so bad!
Fenris: We're in a black pit full of evil. How can you imagine this "isn't so bad?"
Merrill: It's not going to rain. And there's almost no chance of being attacked by bears!
Fenris: And we put our lives in your hands. Astonishing.
Merrill: Oh, I know. It surprises me, too.
Sebastian: What do the Dalish teach about the creation of the darkspawn? I mean the Chant of Light says it was the hubris of magisters trying to compete with the Maker. But you don't believe in the Chant of Light...or the Maker. What do you believe?
Merrill: Well, we don't get into many details but we're pretty sure it's the humans' fault.
Well don't get my wrong Wyborn, I like Grunt and Javik. I just think "strong characterization" is overstating what they are. They're fun because they're one-note.
Characterization doesn't necessarily mean 'complexity'. Good characterization should allow you to extrapolate how any given character will react to a variety of situations. Grunt and Javik have that strong presence, much more so than other Bioware characters.
I mean, take Morrigan for instance. Even knowing everything there is to know about her, some of her reactions are absolutely baffling and aren't really predictable. Ditto Oghren, Kaiden, Ashley, etc. They're very weakly characterized in that sense and tend to fit into the plot more than react as they would.
They're not deep, but they are pretty strongly characterized. And those kinds of characters tend to be the ones everyone loves and remembers anyways! (See: Carth vs. HK-47)
Carth was not strongly characterized at all, he was just whiny. Like Carver.
Garrus was very strongly characterized. Garrus is probably my favorite Bioware character. HK-47 is a lot of fun! He is also extremely one-note. Yeah, that makes for a memorable character. What it doesn't make for is a strongly characterized character.
I think you may be missing the thrust of my point.
Strong characterization is independent of complexity is mostly what I was getting at. Its irrelevant that HK-47 is one-note; as long as he is consistently one-note and has establishing character moments, which he has in spades, he's fairly strongly characterized!
That doesn't mean Garrus isn't strongly characterized, because he is, but I think you're pointing at the wrong targets. Like, Morrigan is very weakly characterized despite being 'complex' because she lacks strong 'character moments' that define her and how she responds to situations.
Does that make sense?
I guess I get what you're saying but don't agree with it.
I mean I can write a character for whom every line is "I smash you now?" (or hey, how about, "enchantment!") and while audiences will strongly remember that character because he repeats the same thing a lot, that doesn't mean, to me, he's strongly characterized. There's more to strong characterization than "he responds in a way that is consistent."
People sometimes like a little broad comedy in the middle of their stark drama (I know I do), so a silly character like HK is really well suited and memorable. He's the equivalent of Margaret from Much Ado About Nothing, or the grave digger from Hamlet.
You're underselling Grunt, Javik and HK-47 there though.
Sandal is not the same kind of character as Grunt or Javik, nor are they the grave digger from Hamlet. They're supporting characters, but even they have their own arcs and change over time. Grunt grows from an angry and purposeless being into a leader and someone willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. Javik ultimately fails at everything he tried to accomplish in his life and is forced to rebuild himself into an entirely person, throwing away basically everything about himself until he learns to appreciate and adapt to the strange new world he's found himself in. They have a number of scenes where they don't respond with 'FIGHT' and 'VENGEANCE' as they try to come to grips and adapt.
Admittedly, this isn't true of HK-47 (until KoTOR II).
Merrill: Cheer up, Fenris! This isn't so bad!
Fenris: We're in a black pit full of evil. How can you imagine this "isn't so bad?"
Merrill: It's not going to rain. And there's almost no chance of being attacked by bears!
Fenris: And we put our lives in your hands. Astonishing.
Merrill: Oh, I know. It surprises me, too.
Sebastian: What do the Dalish teach about the creation of the darkspawn? I mean the Chant of Light says it was the hubris of magisters trying to compete with the Maker. But you don't believe in the Chant of Light...or the Maker. What do you believe?
Merrill: Well, we don't get into many details but we're pretty sure it's the humans' fault.
Like I said, Merrill is awesome as a supporting character.
Its mostly her personal arc that's overwrought and bad. Like Fenris.
0
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well the "enchantment!" comparison specifically relates to HK, meatbag.
My argument vis a vis Grunt or Javik is that a character like that is not as difficult to write since he or she is basically the embodiment of one quality. If you're writing the embodiment of vengence than there's more to that than them saying "vengence!" all the time. But there's less to that than writing a character with more faceted motivations than "vengence!" Garrus is a stronger character precisely because he sometimes does things that are inconsistent, like a real person would. In contrast, Grunt never really does anything surprising character-wise. (and sorry, the SB dossiers don't count towards character development, because there was a revelation for every character in the game in that one, except maybe Jacob, and Grunt's is one of those that is never mentioned again or alluded to by any of the characters.).
Well don't get my wrong Wyborn, I like Grunt and Javik. I just think "strong characterization" is overstating what they are. They're fun because they're one-note.
describe each of them in one note
Bioware's whole thing is to make Archetypes (with a capital A). That said, while I'm sure that I'll be jumped on again, I'm not a fan of their trend since ME2 of dropping the big blocks of character exposition when you go to talk to them in camp in exchange for more banter, even though the banter is nice and all. Or worse, locking it behind silly romance gates. DAO had both.
I'm not sure which is more to blame for it, though, VA or romances
Well the "enchantment!" comparison specifically relates to HK, meatbag.
My argument vis a vis Grunt or Javik is that a character like that is not as difficult to write since he or she is basically the embodiment of one quality. If you're writing the embodiment of vengence than there's more to that than them saying "vengence!" all the time. But there's less to that than writing a character with more faceted motivations than "vengence!" Garrus is a stronger character precisely because he sometimes does things that are inconsistent, like a real person would. In contrast, Grunt never really does anything surprising character-wise. (and sorry, the SB dossiers don't count towards character development, because there was a revelation for every character in the game in that one, except maybe Jacob, and Grunt's is one of those that is never mentioned again or alluded to by any of the characters.).
All the recent DA talk has got me interested in playing again. Don't have my discs but I do have the product keys so at least I can download them from Origin.
Didn't realize DA:O weighed in at a massive 15GB though. Seriously, where does it all go?
The sex scenes.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
+1
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Banter is great but I just want more conversations and cutscenes
Not necessarily with me, just between two NPCs
I like seeing characters interact with each other, but I also want more than just "hey they are just standing/sitting here and you listen to some voice clips play"
Well the "enchantment!" comparison specifically relates to HK, meatbag.
My argument vis a vis Grunt or Javik is that a character like that is not as difficult to write since he or she is basically the embodiment of one quality. If you're writing the embodiment of vengence than there's more to that than them saying "vengence!" all the time. But there's less to that than writing a character with more faceted motivations than "vengence!" Garrus is a stronger character precisely because he sometimes does things that are inconsistent, like a real person would. In contrast, Grunt never really does anything surprising character-wise. (and sorry, the SB dossiers don't count towards character development, because there was a revelation for every character in the game in that one, except maybe Jacob, and Grunt's is one of those that is never mentioned again or alluded to by any of the characters.).
Maybe I should come at this in another way,
Garrus does some inconsistent things, but they are always motivated by something. In contrast, when Morrigan does inconsistent things there is often no discernible motivation even taking into account the idea she just wants to be contrary. Garrus is a well characterized character, Morrigan is not.
But I think that simple characters can be well characterized as much as more complex ones. I think you're going way too far into the idea that Grunt and Javik are the embodiment of a single quality when they do round themselves out with other scenes (and not just the Shadow Broker Dossier). They have scenes that explore them in contexts other than war. But not everyone must be super complex.
Basically, I think Kirrahe fills the slot you're assigning Grunt and Javik while they have enough character moments to avoid that.
Banter is great but I just want more conversations and cutscenes
Not necessarily with me, just between two NPCs
I like seeing characters interact with each other, but I also want more than just "hey they are just standing/sitting here and you listen to some voice clips play"
That was one of the (many) things I liked in DA2. When you walked in to talk to a companion and they were chilling with another one.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
+1
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
It should also be noted that Morrigan is a poorly written Mary Sue to begin with, inconsistencies notwithstanding
She's not a Mary Sue because Dragon Age: Origins is not a fanfiction piece and using the term in any other context makes it beyond meaningless. It becomes an easy shorthand to dismiss female characters who exhibit traits that well-loved male characters tend to have in spades and doesn't comment on why they're a bad character.
I know we've already lost that battle, but its probably the most meaningless and dumb critique you can make. Morrigan is a bad character for a number of reasons, but she does not warp canon around her because she is part of the canon.
Z0re on
0
DragkoniasThat Guy Who Does StuffYou Know, There. Registered Userregular
Well at this point I think some people just use mary sue as a character whose suppose to be perfect and all. Sure she doesn't have the mind control powers that are usually present but most people under what you mean.
0
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
I entirely disagree Mary Sue can't be used in other contexts, and it commonly is. I would define several characters in several books and games as Mary Sues. Poor writing is not restricted to fan fiction.
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Well I think it has migrated outside of fan fiction, but to be a Mary Sue it has to be a self-insert, doesn't it? Either that or a character who is good at everything and beloved by all. Morrigan is neither as far as I know.
I entirely disagree Mary Sue can't be used in other contexts, and it commonly is. I would define several characters in several books and games as Mary Sues. Poor writing is not restricted to fan fiction.
Feels like I should say something about Anders here
Mary Sue is not a condemnation of a poorly written character though, or even a perfect one! Its about one who literally bends the canonical plot to their own plot!
Using it in other contexts tends to lead to just using it to attack female protagonists in general. And Morrigan's not even a Mary Sue to begin with as she isn't the protagonist.
Banter is great but I just want more conversations and cutscenes
Not necessarily with me, just between two NPCs
I like seeing characters interact with each other, but I also want more than just "hey they are just standing/sitting here and you listen to some voice clips play"
That was one of the (many) things I liked in DA2. When you walked in to talk to a companion and they were chilling with another one.
I've said this before, but no other cRPG I've played in recent memory has had me beliving that the rest of the party has lives and interactions with other companions beyond "we both follow the main character" like DA2. Most other games you might have one or two who know each other, and the rest might as well be random strangers as far as the other companions are concerned.
+3
AegeriTiny wee bacteriumsPlateau of LengRegistered Userregular
All the characters I define as Mary Sues/Stus that I hate most are all male actually.
Mary Sue is not a condemnation of a poorly written character though, or even a perfect one! Its about one who literally bends the canonical plot to their own plot!
Using it in other contexts tends to lead to just using it to attack female protagonists in general. And Morrigan's not even a Mary Sue to begin with as she isn't the protagonist.
I see what you're saying and to an extent you're right.
But language is a very malleable thing and words usually end up meaning multiple things.
Posts
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
And Morrigan's disapproval.
Carth was not strongly characterized at all, he was just whiny. Like Carver.
Garrus was very strongly characterized. Garrus is probably my favorite Bioware character. HK-47 is a lot of fun! He is also extremely one-note. Yeah, that makes for a memorable character. What it doesn't make him is strongly characterized.
I also really enjoy Merrill. She hadn't been brought up but I feel like most people aren't a fan of her.
Edit: I just helped Anders with his Chantry thing that he lied to me about. I feel this is going to end badly.
Steam: abunchofdaftpunk | PSN: noautomobilesgo | Lastfm: sjchszeppelin | Backloggery: colincummings | 3DS FC: 1392-6019-0219 |
She's still bad though.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I think you may be missing the thrust of my point.
Strong characterization is independent of complexity is mostly what I was getting at. Its irrelevant that HK-47 is one-note; as long as he is consistently one-note and has establishing character moments, which he has in spades, he's fairly strongly characterized!
That doesn't mean Garrus isn't strongly characterized, because he is, but I think you're pointing at the wrong targets. Like, Morrigan is very weakly characterized despite being 'complex' because she lacks strong 'character moments' that define her and how she responds to situations.
Does that make sense?
EDIT: I like Merrill too, mostly because of her interactions with Carver, Varric and Isabela. Her biggest issue is that her personal plot is really poorly paced, much like Fenris, and that makes her a static character for way longer than she should be which undermines her rushed character growth and doesn't jive well with the main plot.
Edit: wait, naivete is the wrong word. Suicidal is the one I was looking for.
I'm romancing her right now and I found her obsession with the mirror annoying. Especially after all those evil-looking mirror loading screens. She has some of my favorite one-liners so far though, especially involving Aveline and her romance with the fellow guard. (I like that at least as a female I can keep trying to romance Aveline and it goes right over her head, playing as a female trying to romance everyone except Anders is quite fun)
I also didn't enjoy Merrill's quick dismissal of Zevran's offer. Oh well.
Steam: abunchofdaftpunk | PSN: noautomobilesgo | Lastfm: sjchszeppelin | Backloggery: colincummings | 3DS FC: 1392-6019-0219 |
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
I guess I get what you're saying but don't agree with it.
I mean I can write a character for whom every line is "I smash you now?" (or hey, how about, "enchantment!") and while audiences will strongly remember that character because he repeats the same thing a lot, that doesn't mean, to me, he's strongly characterized. There's more to strong characterization than "he responds in a way that is consistent."
People sometimes like a little broad comedy in the middle of their stark drama (I know I do), so a silly character like HK is really well suited and memorable. He's the equivalent of Margaret from Much Ado About Nothing, or the grave digger from Hamlet.
Javik is a person born into the middle of an apocalypse who had to leave his people behind in hope of avenging them in the future. The conditions he grew up in made him fiercely cynical and left no patience for weakness or naivete. Everything that the current cycle is going through he has seen 100x worse of. He is willing to sacrifice absolutely anything to destroy the reapers and favors force over diplomacy. He believes in the strength of civilization as a whole but doesn't care about individuals, and rarely even calls them by their actual names. He's terrified what he'll see in the memory shard, and washes his hands compulsively to avoid being overwhelmed by his super senses. He is patriotic about a Prothean empire he never knew and regards modern civilization as primitive. He comes to accept voluntary collaboration as a superior option to slavery. He has a deadpan sense of humor.
Grunt was born in a tube as a perfect krogan with pre-programmed education, but no actual experience. He doubts his own worth as an "artificial" krogan, his strength was given to him rather than earned through hardship like everyone else. Even with his education he has no idea what to do with his strength, and starts out just picking a fight with the first thing he sees. He wants a purpose to his battles and admires Shepard as a mentor because she gives him both the best enemies and the best reasons to fight them. He takes a childlike pleasure from violence, but understands what is and is not an appropriate target and sees war as a way to improve himself rather than just fighting for fighting's sake. He comes to be proud of his krogan heritage and studies great krogan leaders of the past. He loves dinosaurs and Hemingway novels.
Yeah I edited my statement. She fully understands that Spirits will devour you.
The girl needs a therapist.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
You're underselling Grunt, Javik and HK-47 there though.
Sandal is not the same kind of character as Grunt or Javik, nor are they the grave digger from Hamlet. They're supporting characters, but even they have their own arcs and change over time. Grunt grows from an angry and purposeless being into a leader and someone willing to sacrifice himself for the greater good. Javik ultimately fails at everything he tried to accomplish in his life and is forced to rebuild himself into an entirely person, throwing away basically everything about himself until he learns to appreciate and adapt to the strange new world he's found himself in. They have a number of scenes where they don't respond with 'FIGHT' and 'VENGEANCE' as they try to come to grips and adapt.
Admittedly, this isn't true of HK-47 (until KoTOR II).
Like I said, Merrill is awesome as a supporting character.
Its mostly her personal arc that's overwrought and bad. Like Fenris.
My argument vis a vis Grunt or Javik is that a character like that is not as difficult to write since he or she is basically the embodiment of one quality. If you're writing the embodiment of vengence than there's more to that than them saying "vengence!" all the time. But there's less to that than writing a character with more faceted motivations than "vengence!" Garrus is a stronger character precisely because he sometimes does things that are inconsistent, like a real person would. In contrast, Grunt never really does anything surprising character-wise. (and sorry, the SB dossiers don't count towards character development, because there was a revelation for every character in the game in that one, except maybe Jacob, and Grunt's is one of those that is never mentioned again or alluded to by any of the characters.).
I'm not sure which is more to blame for it, though, VA or romances
edit: -Tallll!!!!!
Both approaches can work though
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
The sex scenes.
Battlenet ID: MildC#11186 - If I'm in the game, send me an invite at anytime and I'll play.
Not necessarily with me, just between two NPCs
I like seeing characters interact with each other, but I also want more than just "hey they are just standing/sitting here and you listen to some voice clips play"
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Maybe I should come at this in another way,
Garrus does some inconsistent things, but they are always motivated by something. In contrast, when Morrigan does inconsistent things there is often no discernible motivation even taking into account the idea she just wants to be contrary. Garrus is a well characterized character, Morrigan is not.
But I think that simple characters can be well characterized as much as more complex ones. I think you're going way too far into the idea that Grunt and Javik are the embodiment of a single quality when they do round themselves out with other scenes (and not just the Shadow Broker Dossier). They have scenes that explore them in contexts other than war. But not everyone must be super complex.
Basically, I think Kirrahe fills the slot you're assigning Grunt and Javik while they have enough character moments to avoid that.
3DS: 1607-3034-6970
Yep.
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Which makes it even funnier since she sucks so bad at it.
She's not a Mary Sue because Dragon Age: Origins is not a fanfiction piece and using the term in any other context makes it beyond meaningless. It becomes an easy shorthand to dismiss female characters who exhibit traits that well-loved male characters tend to have in spades and doesn't comment on why they're a bad character.
Feels like I should say something about Anders here
Using it in other contexts tends to lead to just using it to attack female protagonists in general. And Morrigan's not even a Mary Sue to begin with as she isn't the protagonist.
I've said this before, but no other cRPG I've played in recent memory has had me beliving that the rest of the party has lives and interactions with other companions beyond "we both follow the main character" like DA2. Most other games you might have one or two who know each other, and the rest might as well be random strangers as far as the other companions are concerned.
I see what you're saying and to an extent you're right.
But language is a very malleable thing and words usually end up meaning multiple things.
Straight-up mean-ass witch who don't give a damn
I can respect that mostly