159 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

StanojeZ wrote...

How do you tell a story where the main character is not allowed to display any emotion?

The character is allowed to display emotion.  he just doesn't do it on screen.

The game isn't supposed to tell you a story.  you're supposed to work with it to create your own story.

And the next time you play, the story might be very different.

And how is this idea supposed to work with a dialogue system? The moment you have a dialogue system, you have a limited number of character reactions from which to choose.

Not as limitsed as you might think.  The PC could choose any dialogue option for any reason you could imagine, and deliver it however you might prefer.

While DA2's voiced dialogue offers the PC only 3 options, DAO's silent dialogue offers 3*n, where n is the number of different ways you can think to deliver each line.

StanojeZ wrote...

Can you give an example of a scene with dialogue & action where the player has complete freedom to invent whatever reaction he would like, and this reaction is fed back into the game and has an impact on future choices? Because without the latter part, I don't see any point to what you describe.

Absolutely.  Every choice you make is a part of your character's personality.  Every reaction he has to stimulus influences his reactions to future stimulus.  When you make a choice on behalf of your character, that feeds back through your decision-making process and influences every future choice you make as you progress through the game.

In this case it might as well be, since unless I'm missing something in what you two describe, I don't see how the game is supposed to react to this completely player-chosen reaction.

It isn't.  It obviously can't.  But that's no reason to require the player be restricted to the choices selected by the writers.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

StanojeZ wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...


*raises brow* Well, I don't know if you're blessed that you can watch the same movie ten times in a row and still get exactly the same, or better entertainment value. But it's an interesting trait, to be sure.

I think he's this guy.

Heh. I was thinking 'goldfish'

And I should add I agree with the conversation that followed my last post. Not forcing the PC into a mode of expression allows for more creative roleplaying for the Player. They can imagine the delivery and not be confined to diplomatic/snarky/aggressive (or what the voice sounds like, for that matter...what if I want gravelly? Reedy? Lilting?).

Cinematic games have their appeal and not everyone wants to read lots of stuff. Hell, roleplaying as a term applied to computer games has become so muddy most people don't even realise what classic rolepoaying is, so they probably don't care about getting the same VO for every playthrough.

Does the VO thing only bug people who like to create distinct characters?

[rabidhanar]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Does the VO thing only bug people who like to create distinct characters?

Personally the VO annoys me in two ways: Character Design and Interaction

When creating a character in Mass Effect 2 or other games with a VO, sometimes the character I create does not seem to match the voice. Creating a very muscular character just to have him talk in an tenor doesn't 'feel' right. Sometimes it is the general voice of the Actor, sometimes it is merely certain lines (Try to Intimidate someone when it looks like a kitten could snap you in half). I cannot count the number of times that I absolutely loved how my character looked, then one bloody cutscene later and I realize he/she seems rediculous. At times even the Default character seems this way, as odd as that might read. Perhaps I am mad for trying to add so much detail into my people.

As to interactions and the actual Acting Work, I merely point you all towards the "At Least Father isn't alone anymore" Sarcastic line from Lothering. This is not Sarcastic, this is being an ***.  The Paraphrasing and the line makes sense but how that is funny is beyond me. I hate moments like that, hate them with a passion, breaks all my immersion. First I lol, then I am disbelieving, then I am just disappointed. Trying to not step on any dialogue minefields is a pain in the rear on subsequent playthroughs. At one point I actually took a notebook and wrote notes for Every Single Dialogue Line in Game just so that I would not have one of these moments. I also would rather have no voice and no facial expressions so that I can imagine (such a thought is mind boggling, I know. To think that you can have your own idea about something in this century) how my character utters a dialogue choice. To further this, I enjoy having full text instead of paraphrasing.

Perhaps I am old fashioned for my age. Heck, I still read novels writen in the 1960s and earlier, my favorite book is the same age as myself. I never played a game with a silent protagonist until DAO, never looked back since. Was I spoiled by how well done this single game did he conversations? Maybe. Am I cynical about VAing after dealing with some horrendous examples? Probably. Could I have a confirmation bias? Who doesn't. Yet the fact remains that I as a customer value how a line is executed FAR HIGHER then the actual line. Give me a line of script and I can give you 100 different approaches to it (except for perhaps a single word like Hi.). Give me a voiced protagonist saying that line and guess how many options are still available to me (I'll give you a hint* < 2).

[Sylvius the Mad]

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...

Does the VO thing only bug people who like to create distinct characters?

Possibly, but that's what RPGs are.  Not just the creation of a distinct character, but the implementation and realisation of a distinct character.

If that's not a popular playstyle, then perhaps RPGs should go way, but I will not stand by and watch games like ME and DA2 be passed off as RPGs and let the specificity of the concept of roleplaying be lost to history.  If the meaning of the term roleplaying is changed to mean whatever it is people think it means when they talk about roleplaying elements, then we lose the ability to describe the roleplaying of old.

The voiced protagonist is the Newspeak of RPGs.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

rabidhanar wrote...

Shadow of Light Dragon wrote...
Does the VO thing only bug people who like to create distinct characters?

Personally the VO annoys me in two ways: Character Design and Interaction

Perhaps I am old fashioned for my age. Heck, I still read novels writen in the 1960s and earlier, my favorite book is the same age as myself. I never played a game with a silent protagonist until DAO, never looked back since. Was I spoiled by how well done this single game did he conversations? Maybe. Am I cynical about VAing after dealing with some horrendous examples? Probably. Could I have a confirmation bias? Who doesn't. Yet the fact remains that I as a customer value how a line is executed FAR HIGHER then the actual line. Give me a line of script and I can give you 100 different approaches to it (except for perhaps a single word like Hi.). Give me a voiced protagonist saying that line and guess how many options are still available to me (I'll give you a hint* < 2).

Wow, DA:O was your first unvoiced PC RPG? And you *prefer* it? I'm impressed! (grew up with them here)

Good post, and I largely agree with just about everything you said. I suppose I'm curious to learn if the people who don't mind, or indeed prefer PC VO are people who don't do much classic roleplaying or 'own' their characters. The disconnect between paraphrases (What We Read) and delivery (What's Actually Said) is a slightly separate topic, though no less important.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Possibly, but that's what RPGs are.  Not just the creation of a distinct character, but the implementation and realisation of a distinct character.

Yes and no. Computer game RPGs started off fairly basic, even the ones based on Dungeons and Dragons (widely accepted as the Father of RP). It was mostly create class/race characters, kill stuff, get loot, complete linear quests, save the world by killing a boss. I suppose the almost complete lack of dialogue meant you could pour as much life into each character as your heart desired, but the world didn't care, and what is roleplaying without reaction or interaction?

Pen and Paper RPGs aren't always about distinct characters either. For some, an RPG is just creating a race/class combo, choosing skills and equipment, then killing stuff with friends. There are campaigns dedicated to dungeon crawls, and while each person controls a separate character, they are only distinct because of that. There is no effort at backstory, personality, motivations, beliefs, fears, all aspects of classic roleplaying.

There are people who don't care about the depth of their own character and want to focus on building abilities, and there are people who don't care about skills or combat and only *want* character development. Both are valid forms of RP. I occasionally roll my eyes at Dioblo and say, "You're not a *real* RPG!", but it's as much of one as a stock standard dungeon crawl. We few who like to focus on character development are just upset, understandably IMO, that the combat skill-fest RPGs are what sell, so that's mostly what's being made.

If that's not a popular playstyle, then perhaps RPGs should go way, but I will not stand by and watch games like ME and DA2 be passed off as RPGs and let the specificity of the concept of roleplaying be lost to history.  If the meaning of the term roleplaying is changed to mean whatever it is people think it means when they talk about roleplaying elements, then we lose the ability to describe the roleplaying of old.

Roleplaying originally just meant being in the shoes of a character who is not you, and controlling their actions. It didn't have to be any deeper than that, although some roleplayers like to say it should be.

In the context of my question, a default VO would be quite a good thing for people who don't get classic roleplaying or who prefer to focus on skills/stats. That's why I asked if PC VOs were only considered detrimental by people like us, who (apparently) have more interest in character distinction as is defined by storytelling and imagination.

[maxernst]

While the OP may be correct, I guess the question is whether funnier jokes is worth sacrificing your control of the character to the degree that the paraphrasing entails. I'm sure that Bioware could make more beautifully choreographed battle scenes if they didn't allow the player to pause the game and issue orders to individual characters, but would the improved visual appeal be worth the sacrifice?

And before you say, but that would be taking out "gameplay", I consider the selection of dialogue options to be an integral part of the gameplay.  The paraphrasing is exactly analogous in my mind to being only able to tell your characters to attack and not knowing what abilities they would use in combat.  Honestly, in Bioware games, I think the dialogue is the most enjoyable part of the gameplay. I've never thought Bioware was very good at dungeon crawls.

Personally, I think Bioware's going to be in trouble if they keep pushing farther from classic RPG's toward action/adventure style because they're just not that good at it.  Mass Effect just isn't as good a shooter as BioShock, and I fully expect Diablo 3 to be a vastly superior action RPG to DA2.

Modifié par maxernst, 17 novembre 2011 - 04:23 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

maxernst wrote...

While the OP may be correct, I guess the question is whether funnier jokes is worth sacrificing your control of the character to the degree that the paraphrasing entails. I'm sure that Bioware could make more beautifully choreographed battle scenes if they didn't allow the player to pause the game and issue orders to individual characters, but would the improved visual appeal be worth the sacrifice?

And before you say, but that would be taking out "gameplay", I consider the selection of dialogue options to be an integral part of the gameplay.  The paraphrasing is exactly analogous in my mind to being only able to tell your characters to attack and not knowing what abilities they would use in combat.

This is an excellent description of the problem.

Personally, I think Bioware's going to be in trouble if they keep pushing farther from classic RPG's toward action/adventure style because they're just not that good at it.  Mass Effect just isn't as good a shooter as BioShock, and I fully expect Diablo 3 to be a vastly superior action RPG to DA2.

Now that's interesting.  If the Diablo games are seen as top-quality entries in the action RPG genre, then I just don't like action RPGs, because Diablo 2 is one of the least pleasant gaming experiences I can recall.

I expect Diablo 3 to be much the same.

[Malanek]

maxernst wrote...
Personally, I think Bioware's going to be in trouble if they keep pushing farther from classic RPG's toward action/adventure style because they're just not that good at it.  Mass Effect just isn't as good a shooter as BioShock, and I fully expect Diablo 3 to be a vastly superior action RPG to DA2.

Bioshock may have been a better shooter (and for that matter hybrid rpg/shooter) than ME1 but it wasn't a patch on ME2. For me ME2 was, quite easily, had the best hybrid RPG/Shooter gameplay there has been. Leaves Bioshock for dead. Comparing DA2 to Diablo is unfair, they are different games and Diablo 3 will likely be a vastly superior ARPG to everything ever made. I think Bioware made mistakes with DA2, but I still enjoyed the game. And you can tell from the DLC that they are learning from these mistakes as well. The key will be whether they can get the formula right for DA3.

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

maxernst wrote...

While the OP may be correct, I guess the question is whether funnier jokes is worth sacrificing your control of the character to the degree that the paraphrasing entails. I'm sure that Bioware could make more beautifully choreographed battle scenes if they didn't allow the player to pause the game and issue orders to individual characters, but would the improved visual appeal be worth the sacrifice?

I definitely agree here.

I've admittedly developed a suspicion that one of the reasons for changing the dialogue system to paraphrases and icons was so 'jokes will be funnier' and gamers will be more surprised/impressed by the sparkling wit of their own characters (and thus the genius of the writers). We get 'follower' lines of dialogue we never prompted, even banter where Hawke interjects that might be completely out of character even if it accords with the programmed personalities. Yes, cool, it's possibly funnier. But it's not the kind of roleplaying a lot of people have come to expect and appreciate in Bioware games.

So now that DA2 is finished and they've roped in people who've never played an RPG before, let's show the n00bs what they've been scared off for all this time and go back to full stats, skills, equipment, and THAC0. (Kidding... )

[Eudaemonium]

rabidhanar wrote...

As to interactions and the actual Acting Work, I merely point you all towards the "At Least Father isn't alone anymore" Sarcastic line from Lothering. This is not Sarcastic, this is being an ***.  The Paraphrasing and the line makes sense but how that is funny is beyond me.

I just wanted to point out that this isn't a snark/sarcasm line, it's a 'charm' line (Diamond instead of Comedy Mask). It isn't supposed to be funny, it's supposed to be a 'trying to look on the bright side/comfort' line, which is how I heard it.


I'm well-known as a fan of DA2. My first create-a-pc-silent-protagonist CRPG was Baldur's Gate. BG-BG2-ToB was incredible as an experience. I still remember Elmina, my Half-Elven Fighter-Mage fondly. I never really got into PnP RPGs at all. I tried to play D&D a couple of times, but I couldn't really enjoy it. That might have had more to do with the group, but I don't know. Other than that I largely grew up with JRPGs in the SNES/Genesis generation (I'm 27), which have basically pre-defined characters even if they were silent: Secret of Mana and Terranigma on the SNES were two of my all-time favourites. Compared to those, the experience of exploration and the awesome party mechanics of Baldur's Gate blew me away. Planescape:Torment remains one of my favourite games of all time. I loved DAO, and RPing my various Wardens was fun. I loved the freedom of the silent protagonist in these styles of game. I still prefer Hawke, more than I ever preferred Shepard. I don't really like Shepard all that much.

Partially, I think it's that as games become more cinematic and filled with VA, a Silent PC seems increasingly incongruous to me. If a developer is going to make a game in the same vein as BG, or PS-T, which scant-to-no VA, then obviously a silent protagonist is the way to go. It bothered me even more in various JRPGs, where the character was actually silent (no text) but obviously responded in the game, it's just the player never got any input into it or was even allowed to hear it. However, when everyone else in the game starts talking, not talking just starts to grate. Granted I thought DAO worked great at the time, and I was pretty anti-Voiced PC when it was announced, but I really liked Hawke as a protagonist. In retrospect, I think having a silent protagonist in a voiced game is a bit like having a completely mute protagonist in a text-based game (like older JRPGs): it works, but it often seems strange and out-of-place, particularly when other characters react to you as if nothing is out of place. I find it quite uncanny.

The other issue is that I don't put as much stock in emergent narrative as a lot of people here. This is probably due to my upbringing on JRPGs, where RPing just meant standing in the shoes of someone who was not me with slightly more game-hours and upgrading than a standard game. I *enjoy* crafting emergent narrative, I did it a lot in both Baldur's Gate and Dragon Age: Origins, but for me there was always the problem of the characters' struggles existing largely in my head. Emergent narrative is something that I would play PnP for (if I did), or just write for. If I wanted a pre-existing world to craft emergent narrative in, I'd write fan-fiction (considering one of the strengths of fan-fiction is the ability to concentrate purely on character developemnt without having to create the intimate details of the world ahead of time). I don't play games for emergent narrative, or even really to create a character, though that is fun. I play them to enjoy a story, which I (sometimes) partially shape. For me, the fact that the Warden's trials and tribulations occurred largely outside the game-world and were only ever reflected in it when a dialogue option cropped up that was remotely relevant, was a massive problem to me. I cheer for you players for whom that isn't an obstacle, but for me it was. I really wish it wasn't.

When I finished DA2 the first time, one of the main things that stuck with me was how much I liked Hawke. Hawke was/is probably my perfect protagonist, because she managed (to me) to balance being my character with being a character. The Warden was never really a character, to me. S/he was a window onto the world, with a whole lot of issues the game knew nothing about. Conversely, Shepard - no matter what Bioware claims - has never been my character. Shepard is Shepard. I might occasionally make 'epic choices' for her, but that basic fact doesn't change for me: Shepard has always been a predefined character with an element of player decision-making thrown in. Hawke balanced both for me, largely in part to the conversation system, which I personally experienced as incredible. F!Hawke's tones are not as differentiated as M!Hawke's, which meant I felt better able to switch up between them based on the situation, but the dominant tone system and the voice made it feel like she was an actual person in the story, interacting with the other people in the story who were characters just like her. The facial animations and cinematics did an awful lot for that too, probably more than the voice, but really it was a combination of the two.

On subsequent playthroughs certain things hit me, of course - the choices that lead nowhere, for a start, but DA2 was never about epic choices for me, it was more about intentions and actually exploring (as well as creating) who Hawke was as a person. I found the story catered well to that, for me. I'm still finding lines and relationships that I hadn't noticed before even after 4+ playthroughs.

I won't deny that emergent narrative is next-to-impossible in DA2, or at least only possible within very strict confines. But that has never really mattered to me in the context of video games in general. I don't expect anybody to feel the same way.

[Flashing Steel]

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

I understand your prespective, yet I strongly disagree. If I am conversing with someone in real life, I know what I am going to say. Therefore, it would not make sense for me to be surprised about what I say because I already know in advance. IMO the game should reflect this, I should not be surprised when Hawke says something because I am dictating what that something is (with in the confines of the game). When i am surprised because Hawke has said something I did not expect, I find it absurd because I am Hawke, thus what he/she says should not be a surprise to me.

[esper]

Eudaemonium wrote...


When I finished DA2 the first time, one of the main things that stuck with me was how much I liked Hawke. Hawke was/is probably my perfect protagonist, because she managed (to me) to balance being my character with being a character. The Warden was never really a character, to me. S/he was a window onto the world, with a whole lot of issues the game knew nothing about. Conversely, Shepard - no matter what Bioware claims - has never been my character. Shepard is Shepard. I might occasionally make 'epic choices' for her, but that basic fact doesn't change for me: Shepard has always been a predefined character with an element of player decision-making thrown in. Hawke balanced both for me, largely in part to the conversation system, which I personally experienced as incredible. F!Hawke's tones are not as differentiated as M!Hawke's, which meant I felt better able to switch up between them based on the situation, but the dominant tone system and the voice made it feel like she was an actual person in the story, interacting with the other people in the story who were characters just like her. The facial animations and cinematics did an awful lot for that too, probably more than the voice, but really it was a combination of the two.

On subsequent playthroughs certain things hit me, of course - the choices that lead nowhere, for a start, but DA2 was never about epic choices for me, it was more about intentions and actually exploring (as well as creating) who Hawke was as a person. I found the story catered well to that, for me. I'm still finding lines and relationships that I hadn't noticed before even after 4+ playthroughs.

I won't deny that emergent narrative is next-to-impossible in DA2, or at least only possible within very strict confines. But that has never really mattered to me in the context of video games in general. I don't expect anybody to feel the same way.

This is a lot of how I feel, My Hawkes feels like real character and I feel that the game acknowlegdes her personality - something which a game has never done before for me. The warden for example had no personality, she was just a empty shell which I used to interact with the other companions, and first grew a personality in the epilog slide of Awakening.
My three Hawkes has very different personalites and that is not just because they have different dominionate tones. I am currently doing a agressive Hawke again, but she doesn't feel like my other agressive Hawke, simply because she doesn't use the other two icons in the same situation as my other Hawke does. Facial expression + voice really added to Hawke and made her equal to the other characters for me, something my warden never was.
I don't mind silent protagonist IF the rest of the world is also silent. But if the rest of the world is talking and voiced a silent protagonist really irks me the wrong way.

[maxernst]

Malanek999 wrote...

maxernst wrote...
Personally, I think Bioware's going to be in trouble if they keep pushing farther from classic RPG's toward action/adventure style because they're just not that good at it.  Mass Effect just isn't as good a shooter as BioShock, and I fully expect Diablo 3 to be a vastly superior action RPG to DA2.

Bioshock may have been a better shooter (and for that matter hybrid rpg/shooter) than ME1 but it wasn't a patch on ME2. For me ME2 was, quite easily, had the best hybrid RPG/Shooter gameplay there has been. Leaves Bioshock for dead. Comparing DA2 to Diablo is unfair, they are different games and Diablo 3 will likely be a vastly superior ARPG to everything ever made. I think Bioware made mistakes with DA2, but I still enjoyed the game. And you can tell from the DLC that they are learning from these mistakes as well. The key will be whether they can get the formula right for DA3.

I'm thinking strictly of the combat aspects.  Maybe I should have used Half-Life 2 as an example of a shooter, rather than muddy the water with another hybrid game.  Now maybe I'm biased against ME2 because I HATE third-person perspective for shooters, but I really don't find the combat in the game that enjoyable, though I'll grant the interface isn't quite as clunky as it is in ME.  Maybe Diablo was a poor comparison, but I'm not really sure what kind of game DA2 is trying to be in a combat sense.  But really, even in its best games, like DA:O and BG2, I don't think Bioware's combat engines and encounter design have been the strength of the company.

And yes,the emergent narrative is very important to me, and I disagree strongly with the notion that moving away from it plays to the strength of computer games.  It's the ability to create an emergent narrative that distinguishes computer games from other narrative forms, the only thing they can do better than films or books.  

[Alexander1136]

StanojeZ wrote...

Or as dramatic, or as sad.

That's why paraphrasing dialoge choices is better than writing them out fully - it undercuts the actual delivery, which is where the emotion happens. No paraphrasing means no surprise. And without surprise, there won't be a lot of humor.

I'd rather have control of what I say then lol at the unexpected and unintended "**** you tubby" . Alot of times all I want to say is the paraphrased comment, not some long drawn out  joke.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Alexander1136 wrote...

Alot of times all I want to say is the paraphrased comment, not some long drawn out  joke.

Agreed.  I think DA2 would have worked far better for me if I could have just turned off the voice and never known what the full line was.  Let me play as if the paraphrase is what Hawke actually says, and leave it at that.

[katling73]

Going slightly off topic here but I think one of the problems I have with a voiced PC in DA2 is that we only get two voices. One male and one female. Now f!Hawke's voice fits a lot of the different facial types on offer as well as the default so I've never encountered much of a problem there but the m!Hawke's voice (to me) really only fits the default or other older, rugged type faces. The first time I played around with a m!Hawke, I tried to use a different face. I tweaked and changed things to my liking because I wasn't overly fond of the beardy Hawke look. Unfortunately my thin, almost delicate mageling's face a) did not suit the generic body type of m!Hawke and did not suit the voice you get. I had to delete that playthrough and go back to generic m!Hawke.

I know there are time and monetary constraints but have a voice PC might be more workable if we had some options in terms of voices to use. It certainly might help people feel they own the character a bit more. Whether it's feasible is another matter entirely. I'd also say offer different body types but six to one, half a dozen the other on that score. Maybe a male body type that isn't so completely buff body-builder type. Yes, you can handwave an explanation as to why your mage would look like he's been lifting weights when he should have been studying magic but a little bit of flexibility there would be nice too. Maybe three different voices and three different body types and the player can mix and match as they like? It would offer some good roleplaying opportunities right off the bat,

[StanojeZ]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...




The character is allowed to display emotion.  he just doesn't do it on screen.

Well, he could do it off-screen, with his voice!   

Seriously though, I don't understand how this should work. Why does it matter if the character is on-screen or not for this? If he displays emotions to the other characters off-screen, he's just as removed from your absolute control as when he does it on-screen.

[Persephone]

I'll admit, some surprises did make me laugh quite a bit.

But to satisfy the majority: Just put in a toggle to see the full response if you hover over the paraphrase.

Way less headache for everyone involved.:happy:

[Alex Kershaw]

Hold on - you're meant to make YOURSELF laugh? Your point is perfect - is summasies exactly why paraphrasing is BAD. If your character is surprising you with what he/she says, how could you possibly be connected to them?

The humour can be left to all of the other characters in the game (like in real life).

Of course, the best solution is to have a toggle where the full text shows when highlighting the response. Seems to be the utterly obvious thing to do.

Modifié par Alex Kershaw, 20 novembre 2011 - 11:55 .

[StanojeZ]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Hold on - you're meant to make YOURSELF laugh? Your point is perfect - is summasies exactly why paraphrasing is BAD. If your character is surprising you with what he/she says, how could you possibly be connected to them?

You are not, nor will you ever be, your character.

[Eudaemonium]

StanojeZ wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Hold on - you're meant to make YOURSELF laugh? Your point is perfect - is summasies exactly why paraphrasing is BAD. If your character is surprising you with what he/she says, how could you possibly be connected to them?

You are not, nor will you ever be, your character.

Not to mention that you can be connected to a character without actually treating them like a self-insert. Hawke is not you, Hawke is Hawke. Hawke is a character whose personality and choices you, to some degree, shape and direct, but she isn't the player.

[Alex Kershaw]

StanojeZ wrote...

Alex Kershaw wrote...

Hold on - you're meant to make YOURSELF laugh? Your point is perfect - is summasies exactly why paraphrasing is BAD. If your character is surprising you with what he/she says, how could you possibly be connected to them?

You are not, nor will you ever be, your character.

Says who? This is, after all, a role-playing game. Sure - your dialogue choices are limited but I still felt way more connected to the Warden than to Hawke, as did the majority of the people on these forums, if polls are anything to go by.

[StanojeZ]

Alex Kershaw wrote...

StanojeZ wrote...


You are not, nor will you ever be, your character.

Says who? 

Well, let's try a little test: 
Mage-Hawke can shoot lightning from his fingers. Can you shoot lightning from your fingers?

YES [  ]
NO [  ]

[StanojeZ]

Eudaemonium wrote...
Not to mention that you can be connected to a character without actually treating them like a self-insert. Hawke is not you, Hawke is Hawke. Hawke is a character whose personality and choices you, to some degree, shape and direct, but she isn't the player.

Yep. I know I would wet my pants and cry like a little baby if I was confronted by a demon. Hawke, on the other hand, make a valiant/sarcastic/aggressive comment and punches the demon in the trachea.