171 réponses à ce sujet

[berelinde]

BobSmith101 wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

No i dont think we should be given a name. A last name fine but first? No. I really do think that would take away from this is your character thing.

But you are passing up the chance to have more natural dialogue and only giving up something that has no actual meaning beyond a sense of ownership it's not even real ownership, or even the illusion of ownership. A pregenerated character is never created by you.

I'm not seeing any pre-generated characters here. My avatar looks nothing like ned's which looks nothing like Wulfram's, which looks nothing like... well, you get the idea. Likewise, I'm sure we all built our Hawkes differently, had different DA:O imports (and therefore slightly different world states), and probably formed different friendships/rivalries with the various NPCs and different romantic relationships. In other words, apart from a surname and a backstory, our Hawkes were nothing alike. So yeah, not getting that whole pre-generated character thing. Nobody forces you to play as Garrett. Conversely, I bet we all had at least one HN male Warden... with identical surnames and backstories.

[AkiKishi]

Blastback wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

No i dont think we should be given a name. A last name fine but first? No. I really do think that would take away from this is your character thing.

But you are passing up the chance to have more natural dialogue and only giving up something that has no actual meaning beyond a sense of ownership it's not even real ownership, or even the illusion of ownership. A pregenerated character is never created by you.

But that sense and illusion is important to a lot of us.  It's part of why I love RPG's.  I can enjoy a fully predetermined character, but I love Bioware for giving me more control.

But it's not even an illusion. If it were then my stance would be different. Heck you could name my Shepard and It would not make a bit of  difference as long as you didn't call him Wendle or something. Even then it would only make a difference to me. No one in the ME universe would care.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 28 mars 2012 - 06:20 .

[AkiKishi]

berelinde wrote...
I'm not seeing any pre-generated characters here. My avatar looks nothing like ned's which looks nothing like Wulfram's, which looks nothing like... well, you get the idea. Likewise, I'm sure we all built our Hawkes differently, had different DA:O imports (and therefore slightly different world states), and probably formed different friendships/rivalries with the various NPCs and different romantic relationships. In other words, apart from a surname and a backstory, our Hawkes were nothing alike. So yeah, not getting that whole pre-generated character thing. Nobody forces you to play as Garrett. Conversely, I bet we all had at least one HN male Warden... with identical surnames and backstories.

Regardless of what you look like you will get saddled with a mother, a brother and sister.

Appearence is even less than a name as far as the game world is concerned. But appearence does have more value to a player than a name that is never used , which makes it worthwhile for that purpose alone.A fixed appearence does not really benifit the game in any way, where as the ability to be able to call a character by name would.

Whether he's called Garret or Fred makes no difference all Hawkes run the same maze.

[the_one_54321]

Name = perception.




This all worked better when including a name was as easy as inserting it in the text box.

[berelinde]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Regardless of what you look like you will get saddled with a mother, a brother and sister. 

It's called backstory. If you ran a HN, you got saddled with a mother, father, and brother. If you ran a DN, you got saddled with a father and two brothers. If you ran a DC, you got saddled with a mother and a sister. I don't remember what you got if you played elves because I'm not really into elfy things.

You can't have a game without a starting point. I'm okay with the fact that the only time Hawke's name is used is in correspondence from the sibling, but I do like having the ability to name my PCs. For one thing, I play through games many times and often have two games running simultaneously. If they're all named the same thing, that would get really confusing really quickly.

Still, YMMV. All opinions are equally valid. If having a unique first name doesn't matter to you, then having a unique first name doesn't matter to you. I kinda like it.

[AkiKishi]

berelinde wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Regardless of what you look like you will get saddled with a mother, a brother and sister. 

It's called backstory. If you ran a HN, you got saddled with a mother, father, and brother. If you ran a DN, you got saddled with a father and two brothers. If you ran a DC, you got saddled with a mother and a sister. I don't remember what you got if you played elves because I'm not really into elfy things.

You can't have a game without a starting point. I'm okay with the fact that the only time Hawke's name is used is in correspondence from the sibling, but I do like having the ability to name my PCs. For one thing, I play through games many times and often have two games running simultaneously. If they're all named the same thing, that would get really confusing really quickly.

Still, YMMV. All opinions are equally valid. If having a unique first name doesn't matter to you, then having a unique first name doesn't matter to you. I kinda like it.

But where as in DA they were just back story. In DA2 they were baggage.They forced Hawke to be a certain way. As a HN I could mourn my parents, swear revenge or just not really care. Once I left the prologue how I dealt with that event was my choice as part of my character. Not the case in DA2.

I'm sure if they came up with fixed names, they would have another method of telling the saves appart. Because that is the only true function of naming a character in ME/DA2 right now.

By not having a known name you reduce conversation options.For something that has no real function and and tenuous attachment value, that's a terrible trade off.



If you were to just put sirnames and titles in that sequence it would not work.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 28 mars 2012 - 06:47 .

[Sharn01]

David Gaider wrote...

I imagine that while, for some, giving the character a first name wouldn't be a big issue, for others it would be crossing yet another line towards set protaganist. How much that first name is actually used probably doesn't matter so much as the idea behind it. Whether choosing from a list would amerliorate that, I'm not sure. For those who prefer to pick their own name, probably not... and those are the people you'd be trying to appease by creating that list in the first place, no?

I don't know. I find it tougher, in a medieval setting, to justify calling someone by a last name-- titles are easier, when they exist, but with close friends or love interests it seems a bit awkward even then. Nicknames would work, but that's not really very different.

Thoughts on the topic are certainly welcome.

This is a tough one, there is no right answer, giving the player a first name would make dialogue more seamless, but at the same time it is taking something away from the players.  Then of course there is always the fact that people may just hate the name you pick even if they are ok with the idea of it.  Marian, for instance, terrible name, not to mention its more well known as a male name.  Garret I could have lived with if I where to play a male character.  Still, being able to name the character is one of the few things we still seem to have control over, seamless cutscenes with little player input and pregenerated characters are in the majority for games, we dont really need more like that.

[PsychoBlonde]

David Gaider wrote...

Thoughts on the topic are certainly welcome.

Maybe it'd be helpful to make a list of options.  In no particular order:

1.  Nameless (due to amnesia or other reason).  Worked in Planescape: Torment.  However, anything that was cool in Torment has the problem that if you use it, it'll seem specifically derivative rather than just a tweak to a genre convention.  Also there's a limit to how much of this amnesia stuff you can get away with.

2.  Static last name.  The benefits and detriments of this option have been belabored at length, so I'm not going to re-list them.

3.  Static partial name what can be customized around.  I'm partial HA HA HA PUN HA HA to this option.  But I'm crazy. It's a solution but by no means an ELEGANT one, it just gets the job done.

4.  Static first name (or whole name).

5.  Titles and/or nicknames: "my friend", "bud", "kiddo", "boss", "kadan".  (This can be used in combination with any option.)  Actually, when I put "boss" in there, it occured to me that this option may work a lot better if you *define* some kind of relationship between the protagonist, and the companions, or have one arise naturally.  Sten calling you first "Warden" and then (possibly) "Kadan" in Origins was, in my mind, the best example of this.  It was good characterization in that, being Qunari, Sten would naturally think that you ought to be referred-to by job title even if you happened to think differently.  And Kadan actually seemed kind of affectionate or at least friendly.  I think the titles option would work better if you use some titles that are in themselves a bit more informal.

6.  List.  Probably entails the most work for the least gain, IMO. 

[AkiKishi]

Sharn01 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I imagine that while, for some, giving the character a first name wouldn't be a big issue, for others it would be crossing yet another line towards set protaganist. How much that first name is actually used probably doesn't matter so much as the idea behind it. Whether choosing from a list would amerliorate that, I'm not sure. For those who prefer to pick their own name, probably not... and those are the people you'd be trying to appease by creating that list in the first place, no?

I don't know. I find it tougher, in a medieval setting, to justify calling someone by a last name-- titles are easier, when they exist, but with close friends or love interests it seems a bit awkward even then. Nicknames would work, but that's not really very different.

Thoughts on the topic are certainly welcome.

This is a tough one, there is no right answer, giving the player a first name would make dialogue more seamless, but at the same time it is taking something away from the players.  Then of course there is always the fact that people may just hate the name you pick even if they are ok with the idea of it.  Marian, for instance, terrible name, not to mention its more well known as a male name.  Garret I could have lived with if I where to play a male character.  Still, being able to name the character is one of the few things we still seem to have control over, seamless cutscenes with little player input and pregenerated characters are in the majority for games, we dont really need more like that.

They should just do a vote or something like with Femsheps new look. Anyone who cares enough about what the character gets named is bound to be here.

[PsychoBlonde]

BobSmith101 wrote...

Sharn01 wrote...

David Gaider wrote...

I imagine that while, for some, giving the character a first name wouldn't be a big issue, for others it would be crossing yet another line towards set protaganist. How much that first name is actually used probably doesn't matter so much as the idea behind it. Whether choosing from a list would amerliorate that, I'm not sure. For those who prefer to pick their own name, probably not... and those are the people you'd be trying to appease by creating that list in the first place, no?

I don't know. I find it tougher, in a medieval setting, to justify calling someone by a last name-- titles are easier, when they exist, but with close friends or love interests it seems a bit awkward even then. Nicknames would work, but that's not really very different.

Thoughts on the topic are certainly welcome.

This is a tough one, there is no right answer, giving the player a first name would make dialogue more seamless, but at the same time it is taking something away from the players.  Then of course there is always the fact that people may just hate the name you pick even if they are ok with the idea of it.  Marian, for instance, terrible name, not to mention its more well known as a male name.  Garret I could have lived with if I where to play a male character.  Still, being able to name the character is one of the few things we still seem to have control over, seamless cutscenes with little player input and pregenerated characters are in the majority for games, we dont really need more like that.

They should just do a vote or something like with Femsheps new look. Anyone who cares enough about what the character gets named is bound to be here.

Yeah, and the small minority of people who care a LOT are bound to be drowned by an ocean of people who don't care all that much.  Femshep's appearance didn't have actual impact on the game.  Choosing a naming methodology does.

I think the very best thing to hope for is that the devs will take the decision seriously (which they do), and they'll be aware of the benefits/downfalls of any given approach, so they can address those concerns as they come up (which they also do).

And, who knows, maybe in a year or two some cleverdick will come up with a way to have the computer synthesize voiceover of names well enough that we'll be able to name our characters whatever we want and still have that name be included in the voiceover.  Actually, this *may* not be all that hard.  Names are generally appended to statements in a (relatively) small number of ways.  And there are a large, but limited number of pronounceable phoenemes in any language.  So, I believe, you'd have to do three things for this approach to work:

1.  Analysis of voice on individual voice actors in order to reproduce several intonations.  (Angry tone, happy tone, etc.) You could limit this, in particular, by having the name used sparingly.

2. Analysis of voice on individual voice actors to reproduce phoeneme pronunciation.

3.  Assembly of the name in the appropriate intonation.

And of course you'd have to have an option for if people name their characters something inherently unpronouncable like FRVSSSXZ.

It'd probably be detectably imperfect, but might be good enough to pass muster as something "cool" as opposed to "stupid".

Modifié par PsychoBlonde, 28 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[NedPepper]

I like to think I'm not a person who gets too worked up over minor things. But, if I was forced to play "Garrett Hawke", I would have never played DA2. Just being honest. If there is one thing I do feel strongly about, it's creating that character, even if it is just an illusion. And giving him/her a name and a design are part of that. Most RPGs work on an illusion and when you shatter it...to me, it's no longer an RPG. It's just game in a medieval setting. And that's fine, if that's what a company is intending to make. But it wouldn't have that hook to pull me in. Part of what makes Bioware appealing to me is the creative freedom they give me. As a writer, I cherish that in a game.

I'm only saying this because I'm quite honestly surprised at how many people would be fine with taking this feature away. I feel like I've walked into bizarro world. THIS FORUM is okay with it? And this is coming from someone who loved DA 2.

If you forced me to choose between going back to a silent protag or eliminating the name/create a player function....as much as I love a voiced character....I'd go right back to that silent character.

[Maria Caliban]

BobSmith101 wrote...

PinkShoes wrote...

No i dont think we should be given a name. A last name fine but first? No. I really do think that would take away from this is your character thing.

But you are passing up the chance to have more natural dialogue and only giving up something that has no actual meaning beyond a sense of ownership it's not even real ownership, or even the illusion of ownership. A pregenerated character is never created by you.

Illusions are important. Feelings are important.

I give BioWare money because playing a game provides me with an utterly false sense of meaningful achievement. I care about people who don't exist, take place in events that never happen, and achieve nothing but filling my idle time.

[katiebour]

BobSmith101 wrote...

nightscrawl wrote...
For an RPG, I think this is the difference between creating a character, and stepping into a character.

While you can create the Warden, you do at no point create Hawke. Once you get to that point things like first names and even appearence having any real value is questionable.

Oh god, not again.  "Creating" the Warden was exactly the same as "creating" Hawke.  If you were the dwarven noble, then you always had two brothers, with the same names and ranks, the same father, the same royal rank.  If you were a human mage, then you always had the same friends, always started on the brink of your Harrowing, etc.

The only difference between the two games was that Origins had six backstories to choose from and DA2 had one.  But they were still as set in stone in terms of background as Hawke.  And once you became the Warden, there were relatively few points in the game where any one backstory was different than another- mostly just nods to events when you visited Orzammar or Denerim.  But you were still "the Warden," you still could romance the same characters, you still had the same options to defeat the Blight, etc.

Having a name and appearance I choose myself was very important to me, in both games, for one simple reason- when I turned the game off, the story continued in my head.  As a roleplayer and a fanfic writer, I would go to work, and at quiet points when I had little to do I'd be imagining conversations, plot points, interactions between my character and her companions, fleshing out backstories and personalities that might never be reflected in game.

It didn't matter, though, because the process of going "what if?" and enjoying rolling the story and characters around in my head was just as fun as playing the game.

My canon Hawkes look nothing like Marian or Garrett, and in my head, at least, their family origin a la Malcolm are wildly different than many people's mental versions, I have no doubt.  And that helps me immerse myself in my character's story, reactions, emotions, likes, dislikes, personality, what-have-you, in-game or in my writing or simply in my head.

It may not be important to you, but it's definitely important to me.

And I repeat-
Please have LIs refer to the PC via endearments.  It's pretty jarring to hear a LI call your character "sweetheart" and "love" and then switch to "Hawke, I wasn't expecting you here."

I don't know about you, but at home, I call my significant other "honey" or "darlin'" or any other number of endearments.  When I use his name to his face it's just a little bizarre and off-putting, because it implies an emotional distance that doesn't exist (rather like a parent calling a child by their full name when they're in trouble XD)  

I'll use his name when talking about him to others, or to get his attention in a crowded place where twenty people might turn and look when someone calls out "honey."  But the rest of the time I rarely use his name, and would appreciate a similar mechanic in-game.  For immersion and because it makes me melt

[Lord Gremlin]

I think we shouldn't be given neither first name, nor last name. And NPCs should refer to main character by title, nickname etc.

[Ulicus]

I didn't get to choose my own name in real life, and I don't feel like I'm not my own person because of it. As long as I was the one able to shape the character's personality and motivations (and frankly, I find this easier when they remain unvoiced), I wouldn't at all mind them being given a full name.

Would it have affected my Warden's character in any way had he been "Aedan Cousland" and referred to as such instead of "Malcolm" and never called by his first name at all? No.

More importantly, taking away the naming aspect of character creation would save me hours.

Modifié par Ulicus, 28 mars 2012 - 10:59 .

[Shadow of Light Dragon]

esper wrote...

I am already spending so much on games, that I can really afford to be picky about what I want since I won't run out of games to play,.

Well, I can perfectly understand being selective in the sense of time, money and only wanting to play the games you expect you'll enjoy, but I find it harder to empathise with refusing to give something a chance based on an apparent prejudice.

Like I said though, it's your choice what you do or don't play.

On topic though, I remember being peeved that PS:T didn't allow me to choose my character's name. This faded when they worked it into the plot, however...and quite cleverly IMO.

[Andraste_Reborn]

I like having the ability to change my character's first name because it makes it easier for me to distinguish my different Hawkes from each other. Morgan Hawke has one personality and set of experiences, Abigail Hawke has another, and Susannah is different again.  This wouldn't be such an issue if future games had background/race selection, mind you. It wasn't hard for me to remember that my Cousland was a rogue and my Aeducan was a warrior.

I don't really mind the name not getting used in the game.  At least Hawke got to be called Hawke; our Wardens didn't even have that.

Modifié par Andrastee, 28 mars 2012 - 11:54 .

[Chun Hei]

How about do it like the WWE wrestling game. If you want to pick a name from a list that everyone speaks you pick one. Otherwise it just uses a title which is what we have now in DA.

[Sylvianus]

David Gaider wrote...

I imagine that while, for some, giving the character a first name wouldn't be a big issue, for others it would be crossing yet another line towards set protaganist. How much that first name is actually used probably doesn't matter so much as the idea behind it. Whether choosing from a list would amerliorate that, I'm not sure. For those who prefer to pick their own name, probably not... and those are the people you'd be trying to appease by creating that list in the first place, no?

I don't know. I find it tougher, in a medieval setting, to justify calling someone by a last name-- titles are easier, when they exist, but with close friends or love interests it seems a bit awkward even then. Nicknames would work, but that's not really very different.

Thoughts on the topic are certainly welcome.

Does it really bother that much, that the word shepard is repeated or Hawk ? The problem can be circumvented with lots of words. Will the list solve the issue, or simply bring a new problem even bigger ?

Players who wouldn't be able to choose their name ? That would be the first time. This is another step closer to a set protagonist and a new spark that can turn on a new war, I can feel it, even if it is a minor issue. A new element, unpleasant pointed by  fans who see another thing that Bioware has taken away from them.

If you want to please both side, Just give, use and voice, one default name, for exemple Garett, and Marian ( since people who support this system don't care about choosing their name, they can accept any name chosen by Bioware ) while allowing the opportunity for other players to choose what they want. Their own name couldn't be voiced as well.

If it is impossible, then for me no, the problem can be circumvented with many words. My dear friend, my love, etc etc.

Modifié par Sylvianus, 29 mars 2012 - 01:45 .

[Sharn01]

katiebour wrote...


Please have LIs refer to the PC via endearments.  It's pretty jarring to hear a LI call your character "sweetheart" and "love" and then switch to "Hawke, I wasn't expecting you here."

I don't know about you, but at home, I call my significant other "honey" or "darlin'" or any other number of endearments.  When I use his name to his face it's just a little bizarre and off-putting, because it implies an emotional distance that doesn't exist (rather like a parent calling a child by their full name when they're in trouble XD)  

I'll use his name when talking about him to others, or to get his attention in a crowded place where twenty people might turn and look when someone calls out "honey."  But the rest of the time I rarely use his name, and would appreciate a similar mechanic in-game.  For immersion and because it makes me melt

No matter what they decide I would support this, I cant remember the last time I called my wife by her actual name unless I was trying to get her attention when she was distracted.

[AkiKishi]

nedpepper wrote...

I like to think I'm not a person who gets too worked up over minor things. But, if I was forced to play "Garrett Hawke", I would have never played DA2. Just being honest. If there is one thing I do feel strongly about, it's creating that character, even if it is just an illusion. And giving him/her a name and a design are part of that. Most RPGs work on an illusion and when you shatter it...to me, it's no longer an RPG. It's just game in a medieval setting. And that's fine, if that's what a company is intending to make. But it wouldn't have that hook to pull me in. Part of what makes Bioware appealing to me is the creative freedom they give me. As a writer, I cherish that in a game.

I'm only saying this because I'm quite honestly surprised at how many people would be fine with taking this feature away. I feel like I've walked into bizarro world. THIS FORUM is okay with it? And this is coming from someone who loved DA 2.

If you forced me to choose between going back to a silent protag or eliminating the name/create a player function....as much as I love a voiced character....I'd go right back to that silent character.

Given the choice I'd go back to the silent protagonist too. But if I have to have a voiced one, then I want the best possible and if that means giving up something with no real function like a typing out and inconsiquential first name so be it.

Watching DA2 and DX:HR side by side the way conversations work in DA2 is far inferior and a lot of that is because the conversation is stilted and generic because of the reliance on using particular forms of address for everything.

Why am I fine taking it away ? It does nothing quantifiable, while at the same time having a visible impact on the games cinematic elements.
Unlike appearence which has no positive value, but also no negative value beyond the individual player.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 29 mars 2012 - 10:29 .

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...
Given the choice I'd go back to the silent protagonist too. But if I have to have a voiced one, then I want the best possible and if that means giving up something with no real function like a typing out and inconsiquential first name so be it.

Final Fantasy X.

You can actually have both.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...
Given the choice I'd go back to the silent protagonist too. But if I have to have a voiced one, then I want the best possible and if that means giving up something with no real function like a typing out and inconsiquential first name so be it.

Final Fantasy X.

You can actually have both.

Well if you don't want anyone to ever refer to you sure. Suikoden does it too, you have the name in text but the voicing stops and pauses. The effect is much worse in FFX-2 when Yuna is telling people about Tidus without being able to use the name. Something you can only really pull off in the orginal Japanese.

It's more of a step sideways than a step forwards. While I do agree that it was handled fairly well in FFX. I don't think it would work in a non scripted game.

It's also worth noting that all games after that had fully realised characters.

Modifié par BobSmith101, 29 mars 2012 - 05:04 .

[the_one_54321]

BobSmith101 wrote...
It's also worth noting that all games after that had fully realised characters.

Yeah, that's because FFX was the first to go the voicing route. And looking back I think it was one of very few to handle the name and voice issue properly. It's a trade off. You can't have both unless you do it like this.