104 réponses à ce sujet

[SwobyJ]

Answer to OP, without reading thread.

 

I'm a ****** guy playing a ****** guy.

(EDIT: Really? It's censored? h-o-m-o. Like the milk.)

 

I find there are four ways of looking at RPing Shepard:

*Using the 'him' word for ease of writing

 

1)Play him as you would yourself act. View him as an extension of yourself.

Pro - Maximum character immersion when it works.

Con - Often may not work (Shepard doesn't do what you would), and you're jolted out your enjoyment.

 

2)Play him as his own character. View him as a character external to yourself.

Pro - Maximum world immersion when it works.

Con - Often may not work (story doesn't work as you think it should), and you're jolted out of your enjoyment.

 

3)Play him as his own character. View him as an extension of yourself.

Pro - Affinity to Shepard's story without over-attachment.

Con - May still not work if things don't jive well.

 

4)Play him as you would yourself act. View him as a character external to yourself.

Pro - Affinity to Shepard without over-attachment.

Con - May still not work if things don't jive well.

 

 

I'm biased as I do #4. I input the choices for my MainShep as closely to what I would want to pick if I was him (with several dashes of metagaming for certain results), but I then let events play out as they're gonna play out, without getting too upset by something like autodialogue or plot/Shepard not doing exactly as I would do it.

And I'm open to doing alternate Shepards that are #2 or #3, Shepards that I may or may not feel attachment towards, but I'm still able to RP them as 'other' people.

 

I don't think it is 'smart' RP in the Mass Effect games to be stuck to #1 or #2. I think that even with ME1, you had to let go and let the story and characterization - much of it beyond your control - play out. At the same time, its not bad to at least sometimes take choices as you would want to take them, and to feel attached to 'your' Shepard as 'yours'.

 

Sometimes RP means 'playing a role'. Sometimes RP means 'playing yourself in a role'.

I find that in Mass Effect, it can mean both. Or either. Just never in an absolute way. You're not forced into, I dunno, being Lightning in Final Fantasy down a linear character story. But you're also not a rather clean slate, allowed to choose most aspects of what the character is, and what they'll be doing.

 

~~~~

 

I was annoyed that male Shepard couldn't romance a male (ME1-2). I did voice negative opinions about it a few times on BSN. However, I understood that with how the game works, I can just ignore the romance plotlines and save the Paramour achievement for alternate Shepards. It didn't fix everything, and it, like I said, annoyed me (annoyance = one step further to being bored and quitting, so it isn't to be ignored in itself)... but I can still 'get it' that I can continue on and enjoy what I'm experiencing with Shepard, in the Mass Effect universe.

 

~~~

 

I don't like being a 'soldier' as the (imo) core identity in Mass Effect (before also being able to identify at least partially as a Spectre Agent and eventually as more than either of these).

 

It just doesn't work with anything I'd pick to play in a RPG. I never pick the Warrior. I never join the military. I never have a guntoting 'squad'. Not if I can help it.

 

But because of the aspect of choice in Mass Effect, I can grin and bear it through most of ME1, insisting on the 'I'm a Spectre' answers. And then Bioware takes a turn with the defeat of Sovereign, and I'm allowed to more significantly detach myself more and more from previous roles, and embrace new ones. While I didn't exactly go for all the 'legend' choices in ME3 (I prefer mix of 'just human' and 'leader' at times), I was glad that these choices existed. My Shepard was just human, aspired to be more, t assist in the safety and growth of a new galaxy, but to always keep himself grounded as human.

 

Hi. Paragon/Paragade(ME1), Paragon(ME2), Paragade(ME3)

 

~~~

 

There's a lot of things about Shepard that I don't like. I don't like the monotone of ME1. I don't like the creepy forwardness of ME2. I don't like the forced emotions of ME3. There's lines he says that I don't just not like as lines, but also just as ...who he is. Shepard isn't my favorite character in the MEU, for sure. So like I said, I go #4 - seeing him external to myself. I'm watching his journey, I'm inputing my opinion, but Shepard still says what he's gonna say, and I'm okay with that.

 

But I'd sure love for a protagonist I can identify more with in the next game. Someone with maybe more overt intelligence and power, and less determination and strength.

[KaiserShep]

Less determination and strength is a hard thing to pull off in a game that has combat at its core. There is the idea that Shepard, despite all the strength and determination s/he may have, still relies completely on the other members of the team to get the job done and live to see the end of it. ME2 brought that home with the suicide mission, making it impossible for Shepard to survive should no one else on the team live through it.

[SwobyJ]

Less determination and strength is a hard thing to pull off in a game that has combat at its core. There is the idea that Shepard, despite all the strength and determination s/he may have, still relies completely on the other members of the team to get the job done and live to see the end of it. ME2 brought that home with the suicide mission, making it impossible for Shepard to survive should no one else on the team live through it.

 

Keep in mind that I mean a lowering of *focus* on those qualities and virtues, not the elimination of even weakening of them.

 

1. The enemy doesn't need to be so monolithic and directly threatening, thus removing the necessity for a protagonist that will (even as Paragon) shoot and bludgeon his way through his major obstacles. Most 'sneaky' aspects were in DLC, and for good reason.

 

2. Combat can and should still be at the core. I don't think Mass Effect should ever lost the TPSRPG genre tag, at least for a main series sort of thing. I'm more talking about an expansion of the character and game design to no longer necessarily focus on combat being the automatic route. Paragon and the more utopian solutions, along with some other things, of ME3 allude to 'another way', but the story does not really focus on that yet. It still with Shepard and the Reapers, was about a specifically determined individual who won through his strength and resistance - not his guile, not his intelligence, and not his aspirations ("You don't NEED hope." indeed).

 

3. Yes, ME2 necessitated Shepard, even as Renegade, to put some trust in others and evolve as a person no matter what he otherwise would have wanted. You need a couple other henchmen to survive the trip, in order to move onward. You've gotta obtain loyalty, not just obedience. I'm all for that.

So really, I'm talking about a ME2+ in this regard. An evolution of protagonist, and what he'll be dealing with. One able to still go all Renegade (I'd NEVER want to lose that), but you know, maybe not be as geared in that direction in their main journey this time around.

 

For a series with so much combat, I see nothing wrong with putting in some competent stealth routes, greater environmental interactivity, and open battlegrounds where non-gunplay tactics* may be quite useful, even as gunplay is still a major part of things.

 

*There is already some of that, but 'next gen' to me should equate to 'omg we can use vehicles and better biotics and spy tools?????'.

[KaiserShep]

Don't forget hacking and non-lethal weapons. ME1 kind of allowed this with gas grenades to save the colonists.

[Farangbaa]

I played one FemShep to romance Samantha.

 

This should tell you enough

[SwobyJ]

Don't forget hacking and non-lethal weapons. ME1 kind of allowed this with gas grenades to save the colonists.

 

Yeah it's always been present, but it is clear that it wasn't the more basic path for the story and how it regarded Shepard. The plot seems more 'astonished' (so to speak) that you go Paragon, whereas it just carries on (note I said plot, not NPCs) if you go Renegade.

 

I'd like a reversal of that. Be a character who actually first aims to save the infected colony by their words and actions, but THEN sees that they may not be savable so they may HAVE TO to kill them. (As opposed to Shepard's disgust at the creepers, meaning that he first aims to kill the colonists, but then is given 'another way' that he may or may not take.)

Just as an example of how the writing style could be different.

We see how one 'side' of things faces problems compared to others. For the most part, the side given more 'ammo' is the 'kill things' side (even ME2 let the 'save colonists' thing be overshadowed by 'FIGHT for the LOST', FIGHTING the Reapers, and the focus on fighting the Collectors - notice that the Horizon colonists die by default, even as you can work to save the crew and keep the squad alive).

I wonder what would happen with a story that shifts that into a 'save things' side.

 

Any any non-gunplay elements, for the most part, didn't evolve throughout the series. In fact, hacking was degraded and then removed. Non-lethal weapons was DLC. Shepard's core fight wasn't to find a way to a 'solution', but to make a big-ass weapon. And that's all fine imo. I just want something else to identify with

[Reorte]

I don't think it is 'smart' RP in the Mass Effect games to be stuck to #1 or #2. I think that even with ME1, you had to let go and let the story and characterization - much of it beyond your control - play out. At the same time, its not bad to at least sometimes take choices as you would want to take them, and to feel attached to 'your' Shepard as 'yours'.

 

Since #1 provides the maximum immersion (which, as I've said before often enough is where games really score as a storytelling medium) then IMO it's what designers should try to aim for. It'll never work perfectly but, like plenty of other aspects, there's a degree of willing suspension of disbelief involved.

[KaiserShep]

There were non-lethal weapons in the DLC?

[SwobyJ]

Since #1 provides the maximum immersion (which, as I've said before often enough is where games really score as a storytelling medium) then IMO it's what designers should try to aim for. It'll never work perfectly but, like plenty of other aspects, there's a degree of willing suspension of disbelief involved.

I do specifically mean character immersion.

 

And you do not actually always want to aim for just that in a RPG. Sometimes you might want the players to look beyond their character's sole POV and into a larger frame of mind. Or sometimes you

 

There's games where you play one character in first person view, and there's games where you play several characters in third person exploring areas separately. You may still feel a high degree of immersion in both games, but the story telling style is different.

 

Mass Effect puts us into the role of Shepard, sure, but it also takes us out of him once in a while, and also takes action to remind us that we're witnessing a story, not exclusively experiencing it.

[SwobyJ]

There were non-lethal weapons in the DLC?

 

Woops sorry, I was thinking of the Citadel DLC gun but I forgot about its nature for a minute

 

Yes, I'm all for inclusion of non-lethal weaponry, even with its own consequences story-wise to what your character becomes. (just as long as it isn't a core tie-in to it; I don't want to go all Dishonored, but just have some nods towards combat style and care for avoiding death)

[KaiserShep]

Deus Ex had something like that when you could use tranquilizer darts to neutralize the extremists rather than kill them. Of course , I ended up killing about half of them anyway.

[Reorte]

I do specifically mean character immersion.

 

And you do not actually always want to aim for just that in a RPG. Sometimes you might want the players to look beyond their character's sole POV and into a larger frame of mind. Or sometimes you

 

There's games where you play one character in first person view, and there's games where you play several characters in third person exploring areas separately. You may still feel a high degree of immersion in both games, but the story telling style is different.

You don't feel as much of a degree of immersion in the latter. They may still tell a good story and do it well but it's a different sort of story and in some way a more conventional one. You can get a wider point of view from other characters. As I said earlier I'll do later playthroughs in a different character but they're never as engaging as ones I try to do from my point of view (even taking into account that replays never can be).

 

This doesn't mean that it's the only way a game should be designed of course; a bit of variety is always good, but other approaches are better suited for non-RPGs.

 

Mass Effect puts us into the role of Shepard, sure, but it also takes us out of him once in a while, and also takes action to remind us that we're witnessing a story, not exclusively experiencing it.

 

And I dislike those moments for being immersion- breaking. Reminding us that we're witnessing the story instead of experiencing it is precisely what I think it shouldn't be doing. The point is to let us pretend we're experiencing it. That taking us out would is like Darth Vader taking his helmet off for a cup of coffee in the middle of a battle.
 

[naddaya]

I always play as femShep because of the voice acting. My canon is a renegon vanguard, I had tons of fun with her. She didn't romance anyone, none of the options seemed fitting.

 

I played her as her own character, I don't self-insert in RPGs. I wasn't too fond of some of the autodialogue but it worked out until ME3. I can play very different characters, but I need to relate to them at least a bit. I need to find them overall likeable and sympathetic, if I actively dislike too many of their traits I get frustrated. I can't play full paragons, extremist paladin types, completely evil characters or plain dumbasses. I'm happiest when I can play strong, flawed, smart characters with a sense of humor.

[SwobyJ]

You don't feel as much of a degree of immersion in the latter. They may still tell a good story and do it well but it's a different sort of story and in some way a more conventional one. You can get a wider point of view from other characters. As I said earlier I'll do later playthroughs in a different character but they're never as engaging as ones I try to do from my point of view (even taking into account that replays never can be).

 

This doesn't mean that it's the only way a game should be designed of course; a bit of variety is always good, but other approaches are better suited for non-RPGs.

 

And I dislike those moments for being immersion- breaking. Reminding us that we're witnessing the story instead of experiencing it is precisely what I think it shouldn't be doing. The point is to let us pretend we're experiencing it. That taking us out would is like Darth Vader taking his helmet off for a cup of coffee in the middle of a battle.
 

 

Star Wars is a bad example to give imo because it had plenty of moments where it deliberately reminded people that they're watching a movie to cheer and jeer at with other people.

 

So like I was getting at, sometimes the aim isn't even pure immersion. Something is always immersion breaking for some people, so its not an absolute goal anyway.
 

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Answer to OP, without reading thread.

 

 

2)Play him as his own character. View him as a character external to yourself.

Pro - Maximum world immersion when it works.

Con - Often may not work (story doesn't work as you think it should), and you're jolted out of your enjoyment.

 

This is the way I played Shepard. However, after X number of plays one can really get into the role of a character and there is a problem of extricating oneself from the role in the end. While in the game one becomes the character and behaves as the character. This involved creating a very detailed biography of the character based on their history and psychological profile and playing off that.

[SwobyJ]

This is the way I played Shepard. However, after X number of plays one can really get into the role of a character and there is a problem of extricating oneself from the role in the end. While in the game one becomes the character and behaves as the character. This involved creating a very detailed biography of the character based on their history and psychological profile and playing off that.

 

It's very interesting how people take it!

 

#1 and #2 are greater extremes but if one can handle that, then they can still enjoy it a ton, even more than #3 and #4.

#3 and #4 are more moderate approaches less likely to annoy you as you play and think of the games, but they can be hard to sustain if you're more attuned to #1 and #2.

 

Your personal detailed biography is a good example. It can suck to make a bio right off the bat (without knowing the trilogy) and then see that the game isn't conforming to your vision of the character and story. But at the same time, if you can make a general enough bio and list of character attributes, then that bio can instead just act as your 'guide' to knowing what your Shepard would pick in situations, or close enough to it.

 

For example, I probably would have been mad enough at the geth/Legion (even as he's about my favorite character) that he wants to disperse the Reaper upgrade to all geth without organics being involved in that. Instead of Peace or Destroying Legion, I actually may have opted for a (hopefully *temporary*) control option over their systems so that Shepard won't be jerked around again. That's how 'my Shepard' might have taken things.

 

But I can't do that. But to me, that's okay. My view of how my Shepard should act gives a leeway, and can deal with the restrictions that the dungeon master Bioware sets up. I went for the 2nd best path - Rannoch Peace but with a more worried tone (when allowed to be) about the geth.

[SporkFu]

2)Play him as his own character. View him as a character external to yourself.

Pro - Maximum world immersion when it works.

Con - Often may not work (story doesn't work as you think it should), and you're jolted out of your enjoyment.

I try to do this. Enter the game, or the trilogy, at character creation with a idea of how I want shep to behave, and I try to stick to it... but some things just don't feel right, so I play it differently. It doesn't help that I've played the game so many times that I know -- or at least have a pretty good idea of -- the consequences of my decisions. Doesn't stop me from playing the trilogy at all, heh... and I wouldn't say I'm jolted out of my enjoyment, rather the opposite. If I'd stuck to my original 'plan' for shep then I probably wouldn't enjoy as much. 

[Ryriena]

This is the way I played Shepard. However, after X number of plays one can really get into the role of a character and there is a problem of extricating oneself from the role in the end. While in the game one becomes the character and behaves as the character. This involved creating a very detailed biography of the character based on their history and psychological profile and playing off that.

I tend too agree I have many play throughs and come up with detailed background for the characters. Then I go off what they felt at the moments during their lives. Like the colonial Shepard has a bad habit of not shooting people needless violence.

[Exile Isan]

I'm female and I play femshep, mostly because if I can play as a girl in a game I will, considering what a rarity it seems to be. I also can't seem to make a decent looking ManShep. However, while Garrus is my favorite romance I have no problem romancing all the characters available to femshep. I'm working on romancing Liara right now (and am slightly disappointed I must say) and I have two femsheps in the works to romance Jacob and Sam respectively. And I'm excited about romancing Sam even though I, the player, am not a lesbian. Just because Sam in one of my favorite characters.

 

I have a total of 5 Shepards:

Sara (None, Garrus, Garrus)

Lilith (Kaidan, Garrus, Garrus)

Nadia (None, Thane, None) <---Somewhere it the future I see her and James together in my headcanon.

Silvia (Liara, Liara, Liara)

Rhianna (Kaidan, None, Kaidan)

 

And two more as yet unnamed that will romance no one in ME1, Jacob in ME2, and then Kaidan in ME3. And then on that will romance nobody in ME1 and ME2 and romance Samantha in ME3.

 

 

Also OP I would say that the lack of differences between people's reactions to  ManShep vs. FemShep, outside of romances boils down to the fact the Commander Shepard's gender is a complete non-issue. I can only think of a handful of places that Shep's gender changes people's reactions and honestly that's how it should be.

 

Eventually I play manshep, and when I do he'll end up with Jack, because she's awesome.

[Diesel]

Hetero male Shepard. I've played many games with many female characters (mostly MMORPGs), but just associate this story with male Shepard for some reason. I always struggle with female builds of Shepard and haven't made it through a single game with her yet. Always a first at some point perhaps.

[Hadeedak]

What I usually do when I'm winding up a new character is I create a series of personality traits, just like I do when I'm writing a short story. I try to figure out a feel (bitter noir hero, happy bubbly shiny times), and do my best to match it with what's in the game. I use the results of the first playthrough (most of the time) to do a second playthrough where that personality is combined with what's in the game.

 

 

 

...That being said, my first and inevitably favorite playthrough of Bioware games lately has been female Rooster Cogburn.

 

>>

 

I regret nothing.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

It's very interesting how people take it!

 

#1 and #2 are greater extremes but if one can handle that, then they can still enjoy it a ton, even more than #3 and #4.

#3 and #4 are more moderate approaches less likely to annoy you as you play and think of the games, but they can be hard to sustain if you're more attuned to #1 and #2.

 

Your personal detailed biography is a good example. It can suck to make a bio right off the bat (without knowing the trilogy) and then see that the game isn't conforming to your vision of the character and story. But at the same time, if you can make a general enough bio and list of character attributes, then that bio can instead just act as your 'guide' to knowing what your Shepard would pick in situations, or close enough to it.

 

For example, I probably would have been mad enough at the geth/Legion (even as he's about my favorite character) that he wants to disperse the Reaper upgrade to all geth without organics being involved in that. Instead of Peace or Destroying Legion, I actually may have opted for a (hopefully *temporary*) control option over their systems so that Shepard won't be jerked around again. That's how 'my Shepard' might have taken things.

 

But I can't do that. But to me, that's okay. My view of how my Shepard should act gives a leeway, and can deal with the restrictions that the dungeon master Bioware sets up. I went for the 2nd best path - Rannoch Peace but with a more worried tone (when allowed to be) about the geth.

 

And the thing about this is that while the system rewards you for taking the blue or red paths, if you are really role playing your character you may not always do that. For example on my current run of ME, my character, Darya, has a bit of a quick temper, and I chose to shoot Wrex on Virmire even though I could have easily salvaged the situation. I like Wrex as a character in ME1, but you know sometimes you kill off a character. Yeah, Ash is going to bite it this time. I'm also having fun rewriting some of the lines in the slides. Although some of the ME1 lines are priceless in themselves.

 

But this time I'm not even trying for a death-free ME2 when that comes up. I'll let the chips fall where they may.

[KaiserShep]

I find killing people on the ship works out better for me if I'm going to kill anyone at all, because it reconciles the nitpicky side of me that wonders if they just filled each Cerberus space coffin with their personal crap to jettison, though this doesn't really work for the poor sucker that dies in the engineering room. In any case...

 

Miranda: "This isn't a popularity contest. You need someone who can command loyalty through experience."

Shepard: "So Jack, obvs."

Jack:

 

Miranda:

[DeinonSlayer]

What does Miranda say if you choose Jack as first squad leader? I know she's approving of Zaeed and Garrus, and snarks about how everyone died on Haestrom if you choose Tali (*cough* Lazarus Station *cough*). Is Jack even a choice in that first menu?

[KaiserShep]

She says "You've got to be kidding me" or something to that effect. I'm pretty sure everyone, save for the one you pick to hit the vent, is an option.