Roleplaying an Established Character

[Soviet Heavy]

Most games with dialogue options allow you to play as a blank slate, being able to transplant yourself into the character so that s/he feels like yourself. It's a good way to encourage player choice, even if it is working within the limitations of the game.

Games like Fallout: New Vegas, Dragon Age: Origins, and several of the 90's CRPGs are great examples of how this can be done well. Other times... not so much.

Certain games, like Mass Effect or Dragon Age 2, try to follow the pattern of the above, but through design choices, lack of multiple dialogue options and the necessity of having a voiced character, the PC becomes less the blank slate, and more the potentially bipolar.

So it got me wondering: if games have made such an effort to promote blank slate protagonists, how well would they do roleplaying as established characters? Like it or not, Mass Effect's Commander Shepard and DA2's Hawke are not you, but themselves. However, the need for the good/evil/neutral choice system means that the character can easily come off as schizophrenic or spontaneous.

I've thought of three games that use the established character and still allowed for moral choices that remain in line with the protagonist's personality. Alpha Protocol, The Witcher, and Heavy Rain.

Alpha Protocol circumvents the bipolar disorder by replacing your good/evil dichotomy with three flavors of asshole, that are easily interchangeable without seeming out of line for the character. The Witcher's Geralt has a wealth of backstory already, which justifies him when he takes more questionable actions. He's done this before, and it's nothing personal.

Heavy Rain, while not technically a roleplaying game, I included because of how varied your choices can get. The perma-death feature, as well as the wealth of options you get concerning how you complete objectives is a great way of promoting player choice while staying within the confines of the game's parameters.

The big challenge with roleplaying an established character is that each one is different. Unlike a blank slate or an open world make your own adventure, you really need to work hard to make your protagonist stand out among the crowd. His decisions have to be varied and yet still fit. It's harder, but I find it more rewarding. It moves beyond the conventional good versus evil major decision, and focuses on the character's thought process and rationalization skills.

Anyone got any other established characters I missed? How do they work in their respective games? Could you think of ways to improve this idea?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

From the top of my head, Adam Jensenn and JC Denton from the Deus Ex universe. Possibly Darth Revan and The Exile from KotOR 1-2 (though in both these cases they are blank-slates by the time we meet them). Shepard and Hawke by the way had small story, dialogue and love-interest differences depending on gender. I also believe that the PC from Sakura Wars is along these lines too, though I've never played it.

I'm not sure if the above examples are strictly accurate. I would categorise Shepard and Hawke alongside Thorton and Geralt. Any differences are likely simply from having more than BioWare's standard "two versions" of the character to play (in the case of Thorton, three versions precisely).

In honesty, all the ways work, just not always as well as they could. I personally prefer the freedom and variation in Dragon Age: Origins or further back, Baldur's Gate II even more so. You had story, dialogue, love interests, unique loot and whole quest chains only become available based on the player's alignment, gender, race, class and so on. Now games have been homogenised so badly that all love interests are bipolar, homosexual and bisexual. All quests are available to everyone all the time, so there will only ever be two outcomes, neither of which can have any impact on the story whatsoever.

I would argue the following. The very fact that Shepard for example, can accept the same missions and receive the same reward by finishing a given mission as either Paragon or Renegade, and that the game proceeds precisely the same way after the choice is made makes the choice, for all intents and purposes, redundant.

Hawke as well could murder and side against Templars (for example) at every single opportunity throughout the game, and still in Act III get the choice of whether to side with the Mages or Templars. Why is that even a possibility?

I'd like to see games learn a little from the best parts of what came before to make for better role-playing in the future. I want parts of the game to be out of my reach and closed off because of my choices. It means I have a reason to replay it and my character's adventure and personality are that much more unique.

 

[Vegosiux]

I've thought of three games that use the established character and still allowed for moral choices that remain in line with the protagonist's personality. Alpha Protocol, The Witcher, and Heavy Rain.

Tch, you left Torment out. Okay, technically you do start as a blank slate, what with death equals amnesia and all, but your character is quite established as you find when you discover bits of your past lives.

I don't know, maybe it's more of a meta example.

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

I forgot to mention the player character from the Fable titles. Although mute, the Hero pretty much follows the same path whatever choices they make, which boil down to a choice between good vs evil, halo vs horns, fear vs adoration, etc. Apart from NPC reactions, I don't believe much else really changes with the players' choices.