37 réponses à ce sujet

[hawat333]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

hawat333 wrote...

blah blah

I have tried that approach, and while it works with  silent protag, i don't find it does with Shepard.

...

Yep, that's true, and also the reason why I usually prefer a silent protagonist. Here you don't really build up a personality but rather choose one from the given paths.

[Ieldra]

Beyond a very broad outline, my Shepards acquire their backstory and their character traits as I play. I don't have the patience to create elaborate backgrounds and character concepts in advance. The result is that I often replay them until their story turns out exactly "right". To some degree, I let the decisions I make for them shape them.

Here's an example:

My main maleShep, Cyrus Shepard, I conceived of having a backstory in Alliance Intelligence, and I started with the trait that he never destroys information because anything can be useful in the future. Obviously, that prescribed his behaviour in decisions like Kasumi's greybox, the Genophage cure, the Cerberus data on Lorek and the Collector base, but left other decisions uninfluenced by predefined traits. Those he acquired while I played:

As I played ME1, I realized how much I like Kate Bowman, but for some reason I can't name it seemed wrong for Cyrus to let Balak go away (other Shepards of mine did). So I decided that he liked Kate Bowman a great deal, and after having to leave her to die, he would be haunted by what happened there, all the time knowing that he'd do the same again. That became a defining character trait, according to my own opinion that "Renegades" can have as much empathy as Paragons, they just do the hard things against their empathy because they think it is necessary. On the same mission, I decided he hated slavery (I don't count the Illium situation as such btw) which caused him to kill Charn.

On to ME2. Character traits acquired there were an unwillingness to interfere in his team members' personal decisions, which resulted in Sidonis, Maelon and Niket getting killed, and his intolerance for political bullsh*t which caused him to shout down the Admiral board with the famous "Do whatever you want with your toy ships" line. At the same time, he's a reasonable man who won't do things out of spite. If he can do some good without there being a risk, he'll do it.

At that point, it became clear that Cyrus Shepard would become my main maleShep, so I put some of myself into him: now he's also a techno-progressivist transhumanist and anti-traditionalist radical, which means he's on board with Cerberus' goal of human advancement but despises their more extreme methods. He's also completely non-religious and refuses any notions of the sacred to influence his decisions (it took me quite some time to find the way around Shepard's "soul of the species" line without cutting TIM off).

After he had become fleshed out this way at the end of ME2, I replayed him from the start of ME1, changing some decisions that would be out of character for him now.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 01 février 2012 - 11:59 .

[CroGamer002]

Arcian wrote...

Shepard is too iconic and established to be molded from a roleplaying perspective. That is why I get pissed off when I see people use the phrase "MY Shepard". Trying to change Shepard's characteristics would be much like trying to change Nathan Drake, giving him a different face and a different backstory. It just feels like a systematic character defilement, much like what can be found daily in bad fan fiction.

Same issue with Hawke. The Warden, on the other hand, was just a blank slate, which is perfect for roleplaying purposes.

OK, care to explain why is Warden blank slate while Hawke and Shepard ain't?

Cause there was no default face for marketing and not voiced?

[stysiaq]

Mesina2 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Shepard is too iconic and established to be molded from a roleplaying perspective. That is why I get pissed off when I see people use the phrase "MY Shepard". Trying to change Shepard's characteristics would be much like trying to change Nathan Drake, giving him a different face and a different backstory. It just feels like a systematic character defilement, much like what can be found daily in bad fan fiction.

Same issue with Hawke. The Warden, on the other hand, was just a blank slate, which is perfect for roleplaying purposes.

OK, care to explain why is Warden blank slate while Hawke and Shepard ain't?

Cause there was no default face for marketing and not voiced?

1. classical cRPG talk system (you choose FULL statements, there are more of them than in the speech wheel and so on).
2. Selectable race and background, which do have an impact on gameplay (whereas Hawkes background is set, and Sheps has much less of an impact on the game - 1 quest in ME1 and 1 email in ME2).
3. No 'canon' or 'default' Warden (due to variety of different backgrounds) in marketing also adds to it. No voiceover? Probably.
4. Fallout-style ending of DA:O, which presents all of the outcomes of your actions.
5. Ability to die as a role-playing choice and NOT regret that, not just because of your inability to save your squad.

[Eyerock]

The first Shepard i played (which became my canon) wasn't very fleshed out the first playthrough. I had just come from Dragon Age: Origins (<3) where I always had the opportunity to let my own imagination fill the many blank spots, like facial expressions and voice. Whenever I played an arrogant, ruthless dwarf noble and needed to make a "paragon" option I could always imagine my character adding a little snark to his lines: "Of course, I will help you<_<"

Obviously, roleplaying as a fully voiced character became a challenge for my immersion at first. It certainly didn't help that I had to either go full paragon or renegade to get the choices I wanted. 
However, when I started my second playthrough I started to integrate this to the character, along with all the choices I made. Being mostly paragon I pictured my Shepard as a hardcore idealist, and whenever I make renegade options (snapping necks, burning krogan, killing Sgt. Cathka) I imagine him feeling no pride in it. It is the horrible, dirty work that needs to be done, and only he can do it. 
Romancing Tali I imagined he sympathized with her people just as much as he loved her, and that he also was very distrustful of AI, where the mechanical reaper's serves as his ultimate nightmare. His distrust changes slightly after he gets to know EDI and Legion and completes project Overlord which he grows to care for as members of his squad, but he still put organics in higher regard and blows up the heretics just to be safe.

Say what you will about Arrival, but the killing of all those innocents really worked for my Shepard's character arc. He caused the death of millions of batarians, and for the first time he couldn't save anyone.
This guilt will eat him up inside, and may force him to question himself in the future, forcing him to be either more paragon than ever or more renegade.

[Gibb_Shepard]

Mesina2 wrote...

Arcian wrote...

Shepard is too iconic and established to be molded from a roleplaying perspective. That is why I get pissed off when I see people use the phrase "MY Shepard". Trying to change Shepard's characteristics would be much like trying to change Nathan Drake, giving him a different face and a different backstory. It just feels like a systematic character defilement, much like what can be found daily in bad fan fiction.

Same issue with Hawke. The Warden, on the other hand, was just a blank slate, which is perfect for roleplaying purposes.

OK, care to explain why is Warden blank slate while Hawke and Shepard ain't?

Cause there was no default face for marketing and not voiced?

Don't like where this is headed.

Voiced protags will always have certain restrictions in the variety of roleplaying you can do with them. For example, no matter what option you choose, femshep always has that overly confident stern tone to her voice. You can't change that, so you have to work around it. 

I assume that's what he meant by "blank slate"; the fact that there are endless possibilities with a silent protag, where there are certain restriction with a voiced.

[MissMaster]

Arcian wrote...

Shepard is too iconic and established to be molded from a roleplaying perspective. That is why I get pissed off when I see people use the phrase "MY Shepard". Trying to change Shepard's characteristics would be much like trying to change Nathan Drake, giving him a different face and a different backstory. It just feels like a systematic character defilement, much like what can be found daily in bad fan fiction.

Same issue with Hawke. The Warden, on the other hand, was just a blank slate, which is perfect for roleplaying purposes.

What? I don't understand. Shepard is what you make him or her. MY Shepard is just that she is "MY Shepard". BioWare made that game what it is for that reason. No two Shepards are a like, thier face, thier backstory or how they react to situations.

You can't defile a chatacter when the player is ment to make to make what they want out of them.

[Xeranx]

Arcian wrote...

Shepard is too iconic and established to be molded from a roleplaying perspective. That is why I get pissed off when I see people use the phrase "MY Shepard". Trying to change Shepard's characteristics would be much like trying to change Nathan Drake, giving him a different face and a different backstory. It just feels like a systematic character defilement, much like what can be found daily in bad fan fiction.

Same issue with Hawke. The Warden, on the other hand, was just a blank slate, which is perfect for roleplaying purposes.

I've seen this quoted a number of times and I have to say that I don't agree with this either.  It's like saying an actor can't make the character they're playing his or her own.  When an actor plays a role they give that role a life that exists off the pages he or she is written.  In the case of games where we're able to make choices (even if they're window dressing) we're able to give a certain life to the character as it pertains to us.  I already went through two Shepards I have on the first page, but easily you can see that those two were affected by the same event but to different degrees because of my interpretation of the character that I'm bringing to the fore.

In each backstory we know that Shepard has a mother and father.  In two of them they're not in the picture.  In one, only Shepard's mother is able to be known to exist.  At the same time, I don't have to believe that the latter Shepard is without a father.  I can state that Shepard's father is stationed elsewhere.  I gave Shepard a younger sibling with the Colonist background.  With Earthborn I can make Shepard's family an uncertain aspect that he/she may or may not figure out.

So yes, any Shepard I create is my Shepard by virtue of my being able to create backstories and imagine the motivations behind certain responses that I'm able to choose in the game.  To get upset that other people do this is doing nothing but raising your blood pressure.  It's tantamount to getting upset that people are able to make decisions that you can't or will not make and be happy with them.

Modifié par Xeranx, 02 février 2012 - 03:03 .

[AdmiralCheez]

1. How do you conceive your character?

It just happens. Seriously. I'll get an idea and run with it, refining as I go. Sometimes, it's just a detail or two (he's an ex-criminal with red hair and a crooked nose), other times it's an entire back-story that came out of nowhere. On the plus-side, it's organic and allows me to jump in right away; on the down-side, it causes a lot of rewrites and do-overs as I clean up, expand upon, or completely change my ideas.

2. How do you play your character?

I always try to process things through my character's mind before writing their thoughts and actions down (or acting them out in a game). "Puppet" characters tend to either completely stagnate or never develop a workable personality at all. Really getting into a character's head is hard, but it's worth it. Unless it's a minor character, in which case it may not be worth it.

Also, random nerd tip: take notes on your characters. This allows you to not only sort out your ideas on paper, but lets you have something to look back at when you're trying to be consistent. You can use your notes as a quick fact sheet, a plan for where you want your character to go, or a record of where your character's been. And it's ridiculously easy to just forget stuff.

[DiebytheSword]

I come up with a general concept of how I want my character to be and shoehorn him in as best as the game lets me.

In a pen and paper deal, I'll be much more elaborate, thinking up backstories and motivations, even long and short range plans. I'm the type of guy that goes all actor at a tabletop game. Changing my voice, inflection, accent and whatever else I think I need during play.

During my last tabletop game, my character was such a hot head I actually needed a beer to keep calm during game, or I'd lose my cool for real.

[RolandX9]

Gibb_Shepard wrote...

There are two main questions i wanted to ask:
1. How do you conceive your character?

Always wondered how others create the basis of their character. Do you make a short backstory and go from there? Do you jot down his/her morals and attempt to abide by them throughout the game?

Well, IMO Mass Effect makes this easy because they give you backgrounds to start with. Being the fanboy geek that I am, I actually fleshed out the origins of my Colonist/War Hero, with lost friends, mentors, therapists, and serious issues on certain subjects.

2. How do you play your character? 

Do you view him/her from a director's point of view? Just guiding your character through different scenarios and  handling the character like a puppet master?

Or do you try and get into your character, so to speak. Have his/her thoughts go through your head like you're the one acting it out?

I've always wondered how others do things, and for that matter how involved they get into the roleplaying process.

EDIT: To clarify, i'm talking solely about your ME characters.

I tend to get into my Shepards' skins. This is why I can't play full-on Renegades -- the worst bits of racism and butchery just make my skin crawl, and I feel dirty just playing out those scenarios. OTOH, it's really a rush playing Paragons most of the time. There are exceptions, of course -- Colonist Shepard has no problem gunning down Charn for "a quick slave grab," for instance. It makes the character connections very strong, too. Garrus is my bro, I can't not hug Tali in 2, shooting Wrex is not an option, the Virmire Sadistic Choice still cuts deep, and Liara...I'm very, very glad I'm a happily married man (with a very understanding wife), is all I'm saying there.:innocent: I can even get why Tali ends up with a crush on my somewhat-introverted Shepard -- he's got a downright quarian attitude about crew (aka crew = family).

[BlueMagitek]

Well the game provides you a total of nine possible backgrounds (3x3), so it isn't too difficult to just use those as a base.

For example, a Colonist/Ruthless Shepard loathes batarians and slavers, has a soft spot for other colonists (so the Feros and Balak situations are easily solved). This Colonist/Ruthless character could be a great guy in other aspects, but where one of the mentioned subjects are concerned, things hit the fan.

Or a Colonist/Sole Survivor could just be tired of life, given the dark cloud of tragedy that follows them around.

Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that while you can play them however you like, I feel certain backgrounds justify certain points of view.

Spacer: More accepting of aliens; most loyal to the Alliance.
Colonist: Hates slavers, hates Batarians. Possibly the best reason for working with Cerberus (the Alliance is doing nothing to help human colonies? Can't be allowed).
Earthborn: More human centric; already a darker past, questionable actions are easy to take.

War Hero: Given that this happened on leave (if I recall correctly), these Shepards have an outstanding dedication to the Alliance/humanity and is certainly not afraid to stand up to a fight.
Sole Survivor: Woobie.
Ruthless: Humanity will not be trifled with; victory no matter the cost, blood for blood, etc. You can also play this as an atoner.