247 réponses à ce sujet

[Kail Ashton]

lol hmm if he gets called Garrett the Carrot or Garrett the Parot it'd be just like elemantary school all over again for me
(which is the proper pronunciation)

Modifié par Kail Ashton, 08 août 2010 - 02:06 .

[JamieCOTC]

David Gaider wrote...

Oblivionous wrote...
With the voice acting, how will the PC Hawke introduce him/her self in the dialogue? In DAO the pc didn't speak so introducing yourself was never voiced, thus no problem for names other than the default. But will there be a pause where the voice actor stops and then picks up again? EX: "Pleased to meet you. My name is __(insert name&no audio)__ Hawke." Cause that breaks my immersion right there if so.

Or we could just not do that. It only becomes a problem if you underline it by having the dialogue require an introduction.

I hope I live to see the day when that is no longer a problem. 

[MerinTB]

Vladiostroke wrote...
I'll just go Shepard Hawke.

[wyvernix]

Eh...Marian. I think I'll go with Vanessa Hawke for my FemHawke. Sounds pretty and heroic. I'll only go with Garrett for my MHawke if he can wear a hood/cowl. My Thief nostalgia compels it ._.

[Divine Justinia V]

Call me unoriginal, but I always name my first character/first pt my own first name Lame? Probably.

[Riona45]

I like the name Marian (it's pretty and fits with the setting), but I'd feel remiss if I didn't choose my own name. For me, that's one of the fun, if occasionally frustrating, parts of creating a new character.

[Dave of Canada]

VittoriaLandis wrote...

Call me unoriginal, but I always name my first character/first pt my own first name Lame? Probably.

It's pretty hard to tell if my character is female when her name is David.

[JSB93]

Tony Hawke

[Dragonageloverrr]

Garret why not Slayer of all kinds that are made and for the women KILLJOY

[Sylvius the Mad]

David Gaider wrote...

Or we could just not do that. It only becomes a problem if you underline it by having the dialogue require an introduction.

Couldn't you use the same method to get around the surname, as well?

Because you give the PC a fixed name or title (like Hawke, Warden, or Shepard), then you can write and voice the NPC lines to include it.  But that guarantees you'll always design games wherein the PC is always the party's spokesperson.

In a party-based game, there's no need for that.  If you didn't write the NPC lines like that (and as you just explained, there are ways around it) then there would no longer be any techincal need not to allow any of the party members to speak on behalf of the party.

[MKDAWUSS]

I'm thinking of naming my Hawke character Peyton. Works with either gender.

[Divine Justinia V]

Dave of Canada wrote...

VittoriaLandis wrote...

Call me unoriginal, but I always name my first character/first pt my own first name Lame? Probably.

It's pretty hard to tell if my character is female when her name is David.

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...


Because you give the PC a fixed name or title (like Hawke, Warden, or Shepard), then you can write and voice the NPC lines to include it.  But that guarantees you'll always design games wherein the PC is always the party's spokesperson.

In a party-based game, there's no need for that.  If you didn't write the NPC lines like that (and as you just explained, there are ways around it) then there would no longer be any techincal need not to allow any of the party members to speak on behalf of the party.

I think BW designs games with the PC as the party leader and spokesperson because that's how most people prefer to play.  When I play a tabletop game (where there are other human players), the spotlight isn't always on me and I wouldn't want it to always be on me, either.  However, when I play a single-player CRPG, I want the spotlight on my character and make no apologies for it.  After all, when I turn the game on, I'm the only human involved--everyone else has been scripted in.

If they didn't design the game like this, I'm sure people would complain about having to be a "sidekick."

[SithLordExarKun]

I'll go with Kitty Hawke.

[Garrus is Hot]

I'm alright with the name Garrett, but I really don't like the name Marian all that much.

[Sleepicub09]

I thought they were gonna name him something so much more badass then that!

[steelfire_dragon]

so are we going to be able to change the name??



phoenix hawke is pretty good... not so if get the reference

[Riona45]

steelfire_dragon wrote...

so are we going to be able to change the name??

The first name?  Yes.  It's just that people were curious about what the default name was.

[MerinTB]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

Or we could just not do that. It only becomes a problem if you underline it by having the dialogue require an introduction.

Couldn't you use the same method to get around the surname, as well?

Because you give the PC a fixed name or title (like Hawke, Warden, or Shepard), then you can write and voice the NPC lines to include it.  But that guarantees you'll always design games wherein the PC is always the party's spokesperson.

In a party-based game, there's no need for that.  If you didn't write the NPC lines like that (and as you just explained, there are ways around it) then there would no longer be any techincal need not to allow any of the party members to speak on behalf of the party.

Yay this!

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

I think BW designs games with the PC as the party leader and spokesperson because that's how most people prefer to play.  When I play a tabletop game (where there are other human players), the spotlight isn't always on me and I wouldn't want it to always be on me, either.  However, when I play a single-player CRPG, I want the spotlight on my character and make no apologies for it.  After all, when I turn the game on, I'm the only human involved--everyone else has been scripted in.

If they didn't design the game like this, I'm sure people would complain about having to be a "sidekick."

But that's crazy.  If you don't want to be the sidekick, don't be the sidekick.  You're assuming that some character in particular needs to be written as the leader, and that's just not true.

In Baldur's Gate, any party member could speak on behalf of the party.  You still controlled that person in conversation (because you were playing the whole party).  Nothing else changed.  And if you wanted your PC to be that party figurehead, you could do that.

In fact, BioWare just assumed you were and designed BG2 around that assumption (without actually changing how dialogue worked, so BG2's implementation was pretty sloppy).

[Riona45]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

But that's crazy.  If you don't want to be the sidekick, don't be the sidekick.  You're assuming that some character in particular needs to be written as the leader, and that's just not true.

I don't think I assumed that, but whatever.

in Baldur's Gate, any party member could speak on behalf of the party.  You still controlled that person in conversation (because you were playing the whole party).  Nothing else changed. 

Haven't played the original Baldur's Gate in a long time, but I could have sworn there were times when the dialogue assumed the main character was the one speaking, even if she wasn't.

Look, I'm not saying your idea is terrible, I was just throwing in my two cents as to why I don't think most people would care and why the devs might not want to spend time and energy implementing it.  I could be wrong. *shrug*

[Sylvius the Mad]

Riona45 wrote...

Haven't played the original Baldur's Gate in a long time, but I could have sworn there were times when the dialogue assumed the main character was the one speaking, even if she wasn't.

BG2 certainly did that.  That was the sloppy implementation I was talking about.

Look, I'm not saying your idea is terrible, I was just throwing in my two cents as to why I don't think most people would care and why the devs might not want to spend time and energy implementing it.  I could be wrong. *shrug*

If they did it like BG2 did it, it would take effectively no effort at all.  There wouldn't be any extra writing to do.  There would be only very minimal coding to do.

It would preclude voicing the character's though.  This approach is wholly incompatible with voice-over (which is yet another reason why I oppose the voicing of player-selected lines).

[Talonfire]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Riona45 wrote...

Haven't played the original Baldur's Gate in a long time, but I could have sworn there were times when the dialogue assumed the main character was the one speaking, even if she wasn't.

BG2 certainly did that.  That was the sloppy implementation I was talking about.

The original Baldur's Gate did it too, all the time. While you could use any NPC for conversations in BG1, the dialogue was tailored around your character being the one talking. It doesn't matter whether he or she is the party leader or not, when you had the option to pick dialogue it was meant to be interpreted as your character speaking. Unfortunately due to the way the Infinity Engine was setup this led to confusion because the engine interpreted whatever party member spoke to the NPC, or entered the NPC speaker's radius first as the player character even if it was Minsc or Imoen, and not actually the protagonist.

[Riona45]

Talonfire wrote...


The original Baldur's Gate did it too, all the time. While you could use any NPC for conversations in BG1, the dialogue was tailored around your character being the one talking. It doesn't matter whether he or she is the party leader or not, when you had the option to pick dialogue it was meant to be interpreted as your character speaking. Unfortunately due to the way the Infinity Engine was setup this led to confusion because the engine interpreted whatever party member spoke to the NPC, or entered the NPC speaker's radius first as the player character even if it was Minsc or Imoen, and not actually the protagonist.

Right, this is what I remember too.  It's been a long while since I played the game, but I don't think my memory is that bad.  For example: Elminster.  He appears three times or so and discusses things that are pretty specific to the main character.  Those conversations wouldn't make sense if you had, say, Safana as the one who was literally talking to him.  It would read like Safana was pretending to be the main character. 

So, Sylvius, I don't think BG1 was quite as flawless in this respect as you seem to think it was.