In Exile wrote...
phaonica wrote...
I only barely acknowledge that the warden is even a "character". I see the warden as an in-game extension of myself, and NPCs react to what I imagine, with the help of the in game dialog lines to get my intention across.
I tried that, but that mode broke down at Ostagar. I wouldn't stay in Ferelden - I would write off the country and break for Orlais and the Grey Wardens there. I can't really see a proper self-insert in games as there just isn't enough freedom of choice in a game to allow for a self-insert.
I don't see why it's so difficult to self insert even with some restrictions. And if I have to pick between various gameplay formats that both offer limited control, I'm going to choose the one that offers the most ability to self insert.
Plot-wise, DA2 actually lets me do a much better self-insert, insofar as I am the "not getting involved" type, and DA2 forces you into that for every Act interlude and for the Act III climax (since another character actually drives the plot there).
Well in video games, I *am* a "getting involved" type because if I didn't want to be involved, I wouldn't be playing an interactive game in the first place.
I don't feel like I need to know *how* Hawke is sarcastic or diplomatic. If I choose a sarcastic tone from a list of tone indicator icons, and the NPC I'm speaking to responds in a way that validates that I was sarcastic, the actual voiced line does not need to exist, for me, because in my head, I'll fill in how the line was delivered.
The bold is the issue for me. What does it mean to validate the sarcas
If I choose a sarcastic tone in which a line is to be delivered, and the NPC responds in a sarcastic tone (which you can see and hear: <crossed arms> "Ha, ha, very funny..." <_< ). Then even if I only heard the PCs line delivered in my head (ie not physically voiced or articulated by the PC character), I know that the NPC heard the line delivered in a sarcastic tone, and thus the sarcasm is validated.
VO lets you know exactly how a line is delivered. It removes 100% of the ambiguity. And VO is consistent, so you know what it means for that VO to be diplomatic or sarcastic.
Explain this bolded part to me. Do you have to physically hear the line voiced in a diplomatic tone before you trust that it was sufficiently diplomatic?
The only possible control would be to see the reaction of the character, because when I speak, I speak to cause a particular behaviour, belief or reaction. I speak for a purpose, and the only way I could have control, so to speak, is to know what it is my character is going to try to cause.
You know what your character is trying to cause when you pick a tone. You don't need a voice, too.
So to me, having to imagine the behaviour doesn't make sense, because it is that behaviour that explains the reaction of the NPC. It simply isn't the case that two different behaviours can cause the same reaction in the same person.
And it doesn't make sense to me that you *require* a tone to be voiced in order to understand the responding reaction. If a PC and NPC are talking to each other completely in text, I don't think it's that difficult to figure out what kind of tones their lines carry.
It is possible to write reactions in such a way that account for various tone deliveries from a single line.
No, it wouldn't. The only possible way it could make sense if is you write the character from the outset as: "Responds <_< to all possible interaction of this type." But that just means you've decided to create shallow characters.
That character wouldn't be responding <_< to "all possible interations" just to the possible tones of that one line. That's why you'd have multiple lines to choose from.
Modifié par phaonica, 26 juillet 2011 - 02:42 .
:crying:
Retour en haut
^_^
:blush:
:)
:wizard:
lol. Sorry but I just adore male Hawke's voice n I know some think I'm nuts but oh well. I have a hard time playin a female Hawke cause of male Hawke's voice lol. Anyways more VO oh heck ya, I'd love, please n ty 
