171 réponses à ce sujet

[YooperLaw]

I don't know how many people share my opinion but for me the player character (PC) is the least important part of a Bioware game. Which sounds weird at first, particularly since I created this topic concerning the player character, but I have my reasons. For me, the PC is merely a story-telling vessel and my enjoyment of Bioware games comes from the PC's interaction with the world and its characters. Looking back I've used the default appearances for pretty much every Bioware game except Dragon Age: Origins and maybe one or two female Commander Shepards.

It's not that the PC doesn't do or say cool things, it's just that the most memorable parts from Mass Effect and Dragon Age are the interactions with companions and the respective worlds. When I think of playing through the Mass Effect series, I'm not thinking how awesome my Shepard was ... I'm thinking of how badass Zaeed Massani is, Liara's character development throughout the trilogy (and how the PC help shapes that), and the difficult choices (Virmire Survivor, Rachni Queen, Save/Sacrifice the Council) made that affect the galaxy. Part of my interest in creating this thread was partly hoping that interaction with companions and other NPCs would be more natural and fluid even at the expense of actually naming the character which ultimately is nothing more than a glorified save file name (in terms of the game itself).

I've always felt that as long as the player gets to customize the look of the character and how that character develops throughout the story (i.e. making the standard Bioware choices) is sufficient in terms of making the PC your own. A big shortcoming of DAII I felt was not so much you only got to play a Human character, but that you couldn't choose that Human's backstory (i.e. Hawke always has a mother and siblings and is from Lothering) unlike say Mass Effect where you could choose whether Shepard was a War Hero, Ruthless, or Sole Survivor and the game would change (a little bit at least) accordingly.

Obviously not everyone feels the same way but just wanted to add my perspective on things.

[AkiKishi]

the_one_54321 wrote...

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.

Tidus is not really in the role of the protagonist, he's really being lead. But it works because he's clueless in the same way that an amnesiac character works in PST.

[Remmirath]

 Personally, if I discovered you couldn't give a first name to the character in DA III, it would probably be the straw that broke the camel's back. I do think that chosing an appropriate name is important, but more, I think that having a distinct name from any other character I play is very important. It would be, to me, more than just another step towards a fixed protagonist - it would seem like the final step, because at that point you'd basically only be able to change the appearance and stats, and so it would seem to me like fiddling with the appearance and stats of the same character over and over again.

I'm fine with having the name just not be voiced. I'm fine with having people refer to the character as their friend, boss, or what have you. A title is also okay. I do think the last name thing feels a little awkward, and I'd honestly prefer if you could choose the character's whole name instead of just the first name, but the last name being set doesn't bother me all that either. 
It seems to me that mostly people referring to each other is fairly rare except in relatively formal situations, so I think that title works out decently most of the time. I tend to think that one's the best option, given that everything has to be voiced. 

[Blastback]

Maria Caliban 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.

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.

Bingo.
Blastback Approves +100

[NedPepper]

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

But I really don't believe it has to the either/or.  One thing that I honestly believe doesn't need to be changed is freedom to name.  By saying I would to go back to a silent protag, it's saying how important it is for me.  It seems like the agrument is that if we're going to have a voiced protag, we may as well get rid of naming them.  Just make them a set character.  And I don't get that.  It works fine in both Mass Effect and Dragon Age.  This is minor quibbling over something that I see as removing an important aspect of what make Bioware great.

This is my one battle, though.  We all have them.  Some people choose to fight the voiced protag battle.  For me, taking away character creation takes away everything that makes me enjoy Bioware games.  Namely, because I think it works fine with a voiced protag and there are so many ways around it.  Even just calling him/her Hawke, or finding a term of endearment.  It's an easy fix.

Modifié par nedpepper, 29 mars 2012 - 11:32 .

[CARL_DF90]

It's funny that this is mentioned because most people I have associated with refer to me by my family name. Ever since joining/re-enlisting in the military it's so common place to refer to someone by their last name I don't even think about it.

[Eudaemonium]

I'll be honest, I thought 'Hawke' worked perfectly fine, because it was short enough for it to be a kind of nickname as well as a family name. Some people just like to be called by their family name, so it worked fine. I think the main trick will be working out a long sequence of family names to use in DA games that don't start sounding ridiculous.

I'll also be honest: after my first playthrough of Origins, when I used an invented name, I have always gone to the defaults. My canon Warden (pictures in avatar) was named Kallian (because the name is frickin' awesome). I had a male human mage named Alim, a female dwarf commoner named Brosca, a male Dalish archer named Theron, etc. And my Hawkes were all Marian, the mages, the warriors, and the rogues. I honestly don't think I'd be *too* bothered if Bioware set a default first name, but I don't tihnk they should do it because I think it'd alienate too many people, and I personally don't care either way as long as whatever it is fits.

I like the arlier suggestion about maybe having a list of selectable nicknames, and I honestly think nicknames or job titles (when appropriate) makes the most sense, because using family names gives you limited range. 'Hawke' sounds like something you'd call someone, but I can't imagine you could pull off 'Cousland', 'Aeducan' or 'Mahariel' outside specific contexts too frequently without it seeming out of place. They're just too long and unwieldy.

[AkiKishi]

nedpepper wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

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.

But I really don't believe it has to the either/or.  One thing that I honestly believe doesn't need to be changed is freedom to name.  By saying I would to go back to a silent protag, it's saying how important it is for me.  It seems like the agrument is that if we're going to have a voiced protag, we may as well get rid of naming them.  Just make them a set character.  And I don't get that.  It works fine in both Mass Effect and Dragon Age.  This is minor quibbling over something that I see as removing an important aspect of what make Bioware great.

This is my one battle, though.  We all have them.  Some people choose to fight the voiced protag battle.  For me, taking away character creation takes away everything that makes me enjoy Bioware games.  Namely, because I think it works fine with a voiced protag and there are so many ways around it.  Even just calling him/her Hawke, or finding a term of endearment.  It's an easy fix.

I'm holding judgement till I play Witcher2 (which has both fixed appearence and name). Being Adam in DX:HR did not stop me playing the game the way I wanted to play it, to the extent being Hawke did,despite being fully named.

[Absafraginlootly]

Naming a character is part of what makes it mine, if there was a set name I'd feel less connected to the character.

I don't mind the idea of a nickname though, like how Thane in ME2 called you siha after you got to know eachother well enough, even if you weren't romancing him (well, maybe he didn't do it with male shepards?). But something that companions take to calling you sometimes, maybe something that one companion comes up with that then catches on, so you don't get the wierd situation of every single companion having there own nickname for you.

[SUMpTHY]

tbh, I wouldn't mind a first name too much. When one of my characters is referred to by a name (Hawke, Shepard) I tend to think of them as Hawke or Shepard rather than the first name given to them. TBH, I can't even remember my female Shepard's first name or what I named any of my Hawkes. I only really think of a character by the name I give them if they're referred to in generic terms like 'Warden' or 'the Dragonborn' or whatever. Though that obviously comes across as awkward when characters you're supposed to be close to address you. I suppose that could be worked around with petnames/nicknames e.g. Thane's 'Siha', Vega's 'Loco/Lola' etc.

[Nameless2345]

+1 to SUMpTHY.
1)I don't remember names of my characters in DA&ME too. In fact, since those names are almost never used, except in the corner of character's sheet (and save folder), why would I remember them? This customization directly leads to the lack of meaning behind the name. Hell, I remember dog's names better.

2)Last name basis is, indeed, strange. More so in DA than in ME series (military setting + aliens). Adding immutable first name would lead to more varied dialogues. For one, friendship/rivalry/indifference paths would have even more different tastes.

3)There are several great RPG examples with set protagonists: Witcher I,II and Deus EX:HR. Yes, some people believe that removing their ability to customize mostly meaningless label significantly limits their freedom to make "their own" character, but I disagree.
What defines a character in good RPG, or in a good movie/book/RL, for that matter?
First and foremost, choices and actions. This is, in my opinion, the most important part of Western-style RPG. There are must be choices AND they have to influence the whole story in significant, noticeable (i.e. not merely by implications) and consistent way. That's the most important failure of the DA2 and the ME 3(ending).
Second, background of the character. In DA:O and ME it had some fixed variations. In BG, PS:T, KOTOR it was SET. Immutable. Predefined. Did it really make those games worse? Does anyone really think that allowing to type imaginary biographies in character sheets (Icewind dale-style, IIRC) would improve those games significantly? If so, why?
I don't really know what should be placed third, but I'm pretty certain that the first name should be placed last. It doesn't describe a character or person in any significant way.

[MichaelStuart]

I think when NPC's call you by name, it makes the conversation sound better.
I find it pointless when you name a character and they avoid calling you by name.
I would like the option to pick form a list of names, like in Dragon age:origins you could choose from a list of voices.

[Avissel]

I fall more on the side of being ok with a "set name"

Even if our character has a set name, Bio-ware games still allow us to define WHO our character are. We still get to decide what they look like and how they act and we gain more natural sounding dialogue, especially when it comes to family. My brother has never once in 27 years called me "Brother" when talking to me, nor have I called him that.

Honestly to me, Hawke proves this even more. Hawke DOES have a set name, it's Hawke. It's kind of silly to be against a set name when the game has a set name the characters always use to refer to us and I enjoyed it a lot more than just being called "Warden" in DA:O. It felt more "personal" to actually be called by a name. As long as the name sounds good (John and Jane from ME were a bit too plain for my likeing) and I still get to decide WHO my characters is, having a set name wouldn't bother me much.

[slashthedragon]

No to predefined names. Even games like Final Fantasy X let you name your character!

[AkiKishi]

slashthedragon wrote...

No to predefined names. Even games like Final Fantasy X let you name your character!

That was the last one though. Things have moved on.

[slashthedragon]

BobSmith101 wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

No to predefined names. Even games like Final Fantasy X let you name your character!

That was the last one though. Things have moved on.

Things can move on, doesn't mean it's good. 
I still don't want MY character's name decided for me.  It makes it feel less like being that character and more like directing a character. 

[AkiKishi]

slashthedragon wrote...

BobSmith101 wrote...

slashthedragon wrote...

No to predefined names. Even games like Final Fantasy X let you name your character!

That was the last one though. Things have moved on.

Things can move on, doesn't mean it's good. 
I still don't want MY character's name decided for me.  It makes it feel less like being that character and more like directing a character. 

With regards to Final Fantasy I don't think naming Tidus made a bit of difference and things have improved since they went with fully voiced names.

[Withidread]

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.

I see a set first name as a slippery slope. Once you have that, then you, as developers, (and this is one of the things I didn't care for in DA2) are developing a game around a specific person instead of "The Player."  It seems a small thing, but the more specific a character you're envisioning, the easier it is to narrow down the adventure as a whole and put us on a specific, set, path.

Of course, having said all that, it would also be nice to hear my name from my companions as well. I would say that if there's ever a way to voice over a player generated name, go for it. It would be expensive, either in coding or in VO expense, but that's why games are developed without a budget right?

Otherwise, I'll live with whatever workaround you come up with and keep my player generated name. Thanks.

(Just to note, Varric's nicknames were a source of constant amusement in DA2.)

[wetnasty]

Just have every speak robotically like Siri on the iphone and then you can have whatever name you want

[brushyourteeth]

Quickly I'd like to say off-topic to the OP that I'm a Yooper too, so yay for that.

I agree with the OP, I think everyone has thought it weird that our first names are never used, but understand why it's done in DA and ME. Especially weird when there's more than one Warden or more than one Hawke. You're thinking "what about Alistair/Bethany/Carver?" and the world of Thedas is like "oh, they're not that important."

One solution that I think could work really well is if characters continued to choose their own first names but also had a small catalogue of names to choose from that are voiced only one or a handful of times in the game by those closest to you. It would be really cool if your LI spoke your name during a love scene or a family member said your name before the final mission. If the player chose to make up their own name these characters would just say "Hawke" (or whatever it will be for DA3) as usual. This would give a personal touch and still keep the voice acting and programming involved relatively simple.

Personally, I named my female mage Hawke "Sera" so that it always sounded like Free Marchers just pronounced her name weird when they called her "serrah." Good times.

P.S. Mr. Gaider, your thoughts are (as usual) spot on. Reading your responses on these forums is one of my favorite things.

Modifié par brushyourteeth, 03 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[Shared]

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.

At least for your LI, it is for me strange/akward for them to call you by your title or last name. Although i agree the whole set first name would be strange, it would be as you mention here a good idea i think to get your LI to give you a nickname she/he used. I dont know anyone in real life that call their girl/boyfriends by title or last name ;D its either first name, or some sort of nickname, or like myself a general term for something cute (darling, love etc etc.)

[Dokarqt]

I wouldn't mind THAT much having a set first name for my character. Even though I don't think I've done many DA2 playthroughs with the default name.
To me, physical appearance/class/personality (through dialogue) impacts the idiosyncrasies of my character more than the name.

[LolaLei]

I wouldn't mind so much. I guess given the new protaganist either a title, cool surname or a bunch of funny little nicknames is the more practical route. Hell, I can't remember the last time my friends called me by my real name lol.

For me personally, customising my characters appearance/class/personality/skills and quirks makes the character feel like its my own creation.

[LolaLei]

Shared 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.

At least for your LI, it is for me strange/akward for them to call you by your title or last name. Although i agree the whole set first name would be strange, it would be as you mention here a good idea i think to get your LI to give you a nickname she/he used. I dont know anyone in real life that call their girl/boyfriends by title or last name ;D its either first name, or some sort of nickname, or like myself a general term for something cute (darling, love etc etc.)

I used to call my ex by his surname because thats how he always introduced himself to people, it would have felt weird to call him anything else... aside from the regular four letter insult, but I won't go there lol.

[Sejborg]

I would not mind having a completely fixed name.