117 réponses à ce sujet

[enormousmoonboots]

So, how do you do it? Start with a concept, and stay close to the original concept at all times? Don't start with a concept, but end up with a character/consistency anyway? Metagame like crazy and try to find in-character justifications and take pride in the resulting psycho? Make choices like you were Shepard--that is, going by your own personality? Or go by an existing character, and try to figure out what they would do?

My main Femshep, I started with a concept (Captain Kirk, sexin' all the aliens) and ended up totally drifting away from it (ended up as Captain America, total Paragon).

My Male Shepard, on the other hand, is being played like Ciaphas Cain to keep things interesting (Earthborn War Hero, teehee). It's actually kinda hard to figure out what he should do, Cain is an unreliable narrator with regards to his own morality.

I'm seriously considering making a Kamen Rider-based MShep (V3, if anyone knows the difference). Colonist War Hero (or would Ruthless make more sense?), Paragon HERO OF JUSTICE, no romance because the hero of justice cannot endanger another life like that.

Modifié par enormousmoonboots, 12 mai 2010 - 05:19 .

[Collider]

When I don't play as myself...
The character I envision is fleshed out through writing beforehand. I only metagame in the sense that I build the character from their origin first and foremost. After writing with their origin in context, I play with the game absolutely no metagaming if it can be helped. If you pick a concept and stick with it, it can be quite fun. Especially if the character is heavily flawed and morally ambiguous - rather than being 100% paragon or renegade - or you come up with reasons why the character is so committed to justice or self-interest.

So in summary, I come up with the concept beforehand and usually stick with that.

Modifié par Collider, 10 mai 2010 - 07:48 .

[Nightwriter]

My first playthrough I essentially play as myself. This is me mapping the terrain of the game and pretty much doing a shakedown run to get my bearings.

In progressive playthroughs, as I become increasingly unsatisfied with my character's level of development, I will begin to fill in the blanks and build a mental story in my head. This story seems to write itself; it happens on its own.

Also, I am not a good enough roleplayer that I can roleplay cruel characters. This seems to require an ability to disengage oneself from one's own identity that I sorely lack.

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

My Shepard is modeled after myself both in Personality and looks where I could. Punctuated Equilibrium best describes it; very laid back until push comes to shove. Paragon lawful good but chaotic when necessary. Colonist War Hero.

[Collider]

Nightwriter wrote...

My first playthrough I essentially play as myself. This is me mapping the terrain of the game and pretty much doing a shakedown run to get my bearings.

In progressive playthroughs, as I become increasingly unsatisfied with my character's level of development, I will begin to fill in the blanks and build a mental story in my head. This story seems to write itself; it happens on its own.

Also, I am not a good enough roleplayer that I can roleplay cruel characters. This seems to require an ability to disengage oneself from one's own identity that I sorely lack.

It helps to write the character beforehand.

[Nightwriter]

Collider wrote...

It helps to write the character beforehand.

Before you even play the game?

That can be frustrating, if the game does not allow you to match your gameplay to the image you have in your head.

I think my problem is that if the game does not acknowledge something you've created about your character, it does not exist to me. If the game isn't aware of it and does not recognize it, it isn't real. It's just a fantasy.

Shandepared wrote...

It takes practice...

So I imagine. I don't think I have much desire to, though. I've never found it especially fun. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong.

[Bebbe777]

My Shep always ask himself "What would Jesus do?"

[Nivenus]

I started with a concept initially for my three characters, but they've evolved since then into their own sort of things. Initially, I saw my infiltrator Shepard as a Sam Fisher-esque character although he's shifted much more towards my own personality since. My vanguard on the other hand is something more closely approximating Apollo (initially) from BSG, who then sort of verged into a Helo-like character over time. As for my renegade soldier, I started her off as a Cain clone (again from BSG), but she's since become a much less outwardly evil character and is even tolerant of other species to a certain extent.

Generally when playing any roleplaying game I do one of two things: I either start with a concept or I play them as myself. These days, it often ends up being latter on my first playthrough and then, if I enjoy the game enough, I go back and play it again from a different perspective: either one that I feel is "closer" to canon or one that just sounds fun to me (my most recent playthrough in KotOR was the former and my most recent playthrough in Jade Empire was the latter).

[Nightwriter]

Bebbe777 wrote...

My Shep always ask himself "What would Jesus do?"

Same, but with Richard Dawkins.

[Collider]

Before you even play the game?

That is what I did for my Dwarven Noble, yes. But like I said, I wrote him based off of the origin, so I wasn't writing in the dark. There wasn't much anything that I wasn't allowed to do that I envisioned. I made him disgusted with the caste system and Dwarven politics, and a champion of the commoners. He was also dissatisfied with the Stone, because it was dead and empty. Upon reaching the surface, he was intrigued in the Chantry and eventually belived in it. He romanced Leliana because they were of similar opinion and motives.

So it's most optimal to first play as yourself to get a feel for the game, and then write the character, or play as the character you wrote before.

That can be frustrating, if the game does not allow you to match your gameplay to the image you have in your head.

The compromise is that you choose what best suits what you envisioned. There's no getting around that - it's a limitation that is impossible to surmount.

I think my problem is that if the game does not acknowledge something you've created about your character, it does not exist to me. If the game isn't aware of it and does not recognize it, it isn't real. It's just a fantasy.

Which makes writing with the origin in mind important. You are essentially writing how your character is responding to the environment involved in the origin - so in that way, the game is recognizing it.

So I imagine. I don't think I have much desire to, though. I've never found it especially fun. Perhaps I'm doing it wrong.

Well you write fiction don't you? Same process - write the character as you normally would. Or perhaps you take a character you've already created and see how they would respond in their origin, or respond to what happens in the plot.

Modifié par Collider, 10 mai 2010 - 09:14 .

[eternalnightmare13]

I play through the game once, and make decisions based on myself. Then I create a concept and play through with that in mind.

[Bebbe777]

Or maybe "What would Colonel Sheppard do?"

[Nightwriter]

Collider wrote...

That is what I did for my Dwarven Noble, yes. But like I said, I wrote him based off of the origin, so I wasn't writing in the dark. There wasn't much anything that I wasn't allowed to do that I envisioned. I made him disgusted with the caste system and Dwarven politics, and a champion of the commoners. He was also dissatisfied with the Stone, because it was dead and empty. Upon reaching the surface, he was intrigued in the Chantry and eventually belived in it. He romanced Leliana because they were of similar opinion and motives.

So it's most optimal to first play as yourself to get a feel for the game, and then write the character, or play as the character you wrote before.

I didn't have near as much problem roleplaying in DA:O, no - it was superb. It's Mass Effect in which I find it harder to roleplay, for whatever reasons. In DA:O I simply felt my character was given the opportunity to be much more interesting than Shepard, who I never thought was terribly interesting - as you well know.

I have often wondered if this has something to do with the fact that Shepard talks and speaks in a voice that is pre-decided for you, a result of the third person narrative, which tends to take some control away from the player.

Collider wrote...

Which makes writing with the origin in mind important. You are essentially writing how your character is responding to the environment involved in the origin - so in that way, the game is recognizing it.

Again, in DA:O they did this very well. In Mass Effect... much about Shepard is decided for us.

Collider...

Well you write fiction don't you? Same process - write the character as you normally would. Or perhaps you take a
character you've already created and see how they would respond in their origin, or respond to what happens in the plot.

Games are different. When I write I am in total control. I can guide the reactions of others to highlight and illustrate my character's identity in the way that satisfies me most and expresses what needs expressing.

As you say, games can only go so far in letting you express the image in your head. That said, I do have an origin-based backstory for my Shepard that I developed subconsciously.

[fongiel24]

I don't actually write out my Shepard before I play, but I do have a personality in mind when I make in-game decisions. I'm not really a huge fan of either pure paragon (too Mary Sue-ish) or pure renegade (too homicidal at times). The Shepard in my head generally does what is necessary (usually renegade decisions) but will take the more "moral" choice if it doesn't interfere with the mission.

I like picturing Shepard as a tragic figure, rather than a heroic one, a basically good person forced to make very tough choices and that suffers serious emotional and psychological damage because of it. It's sometimes hard to roleplay that character though because the game doesn't always offer nuanced choices.

Modifié par fongiel24, 10 mai 2010 - 10:03 .

[Vicious]

I just play a badass trashtalking space jerk with a nice streak and sense of humor that would make Malcolm Reynolds [firefly] proud.



Definetly a crowd-pleasing character.



And it's remarkably easy to pull off. I just ended a playthrough with 100% Renegade and 90% Paragon. My scars looked just the way I did at the beginning of the game and that's how I likes it.

Again, in DA:O they did this very well. In Mass Effect... much about Shepard is decided for us.

Right, DAO let you define how your character reacted within the confines of the dialogue trees, but what it failed to do was define the character.



And that's why the DAO hero is not returning for DA2. An undefined character who merely does stuff and other people react to, is a huge weakness when it comes to making sequels and trilogies.

[Ladi]

ME2 decided right away that it didn't want me roleplaying it. Pretty much right away you die, but upon coming back there are no responses that even entertain the notion of an afterlife.

It's a shame, because in an ME1 conversation with Ash, you can say "There are no atheists in a foxhole".

My Shepards tend to share my distaste for being cruel or flippant - even my Renegades won't stab the gunship repairman in the back, or punch that reporter.

[zebedeeLPS]

My first run through both games was basically me, but braver and with a beard. He was an Earthborn war hero soldier, slightly on the paragon side but he had his moments, especially in ME2 after the Collectors made him angry. And some of those renegade interrupts were hard to resist. He was already pretty well formed in my mind well before I got the games thanks to some Halo ODST fantasy I drift off to when I'm bored, but enough of that. I think of that character differently to the rest, because it was my first run, totally unspoiled, making the decisions that seemed right rather than worrying about alignment. I have some regrets on that character and lost one too many people, but I feel like that's the point of the games and I don't want to play through again as that character to fix mistakes and change decisions. I'm inclined to leave it well alone until ME3 for fear of cheapening the experience.

After that, I've had some basic concepts for new characters, but nothing detailed. I played through ME1 with a female adept who was supposed to be slightly renegade, basically for the opposite experience to my first character, though she actually ended up slightly paragon again. I'm currently coming to the end of ME2 with a renegade vanguard who was meant to be some kind of force of nature, a destroyer. He's been pretty fun, though it got a little tougher to keep up the renegade act when his eyes started blazing red. Siding with Samara switched them off again for now though. Next I'm going back to the start with a paragon infiltrator. He's a stone-cold killer, but he doesn't like it. He'll be honourable and relish a fair fight. He'll have long talks with Thane about life and death, and stare wistfully into space a lot.

[Dark_Caduceus]

Shepard Smash! Shepard Slap! Shepard Smile!

[Phex]

I tend to base my choices on the backgrounds I select for my Shepards. My Earthborn Ruthless FemShepard is my main Shep who gets the job done no matter what, but she doesn't enjoy mindless violence either. She tries to do things in the most efficient, logical way but sometimes she slips and goes too far.



That's the type I enjoy playing the most and it takes me some willpower not to pick the renegade options when trying to play different Shepards. Usually all my non-Ruthless Spacer background Sheps are goody good paragons.

[Privateerkev]

I basically just make him a warrior monk. Go pure paragon regardless of the consequences. The only exception is I finally let him have sex in the 2nd game. (Talking to Tali after you've first agreed to "do the deed" is a middle option, not a paragon one. That one took some mental gymnastics on my part because I was trying to be "pure" 100% upper right justified in my conversation wheel...) But it felt right for the character.



The other thing I try to do is make sure I have in-game reasons for doing everything. I hold off on side-missions in ME1 until I find the computer that gives the mission. Stuff like that.

[enormousmoonboots]

Dark_Caduceus wrote...

Shepard Smash! Shepard Slap! Shepard Smile!

Hm, nobody else goes off an existing character for their Shep? I've always liked thinking about how an established character would react to something wildly different, stretches my fanfiction muscles.

Modifié par enormousmoonboots, 10 mai 2010 - 02:49 .

[ResidentNoob]

With my main Shep, I just ask myself 'What would I do?'. Yes, I based my main Shepard on myself. In ME1, I made him just like me, in both body and mind.
(But after his untimely death, I used the Lazarus project to make him look as attractive as possible.:PI figured that, since it was Cerberus in charge of my resurrection, they'd want me to look like the perfect human; in other words, a male Miranda, but with less Michael Jackson.)

In any case, yeah, I play as myself. I find it quite fun when I actually have to stop and think about a decision for over 5 minutes, and try to justify it.

[mopotter]

First couple of play throughs I always make decisions that I hope I would make if it was my story. I have no problem killing someone who is trying to kill me and I don't choose just the paragon or renegade choices. I pick the one that feels right.



But I have never played a pure renegade character because I don't like the way I feel when I pick a renegade response every time. Mouse is a good example. I did do the renegade choice with him once. It felt wrong. Killing Elnora felt right at least for my female Shepard who didn't fall for the innocent act. My male Shepard did.