254 réponses à ce sujet

[Killdren88]

mosesarose wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

I very much hope they don't saddle us with a set surname, again.

I fully endorse this statement.

I think it would be a tad difficult for them to call you by your name. Because think about it. The VA would need to do hundreds of takes with hundreds of different names. We are far from where this can be done easily. The only way it can be done is if the name is already selected and that could be a name you do not like. So odds are people will refer to you as Inquisitor or a surename. Or both. With the exception of your LI with a pet name most likely.

[lil yonce]

Bélanger.

[Heimdall]

Killdren88 wrote...

I think it would be a tad difficult for them to call you by your name. Because think about it. The VA would need to do hundreds of takes with hundreds of different names. We are far from where this can be done easily. The only way it can be done is if the name is already selected and that could be a name you do not like. So odds are people will refer to you as Inquisitor or a surename. Or both. With the exception of your LI with a pet name most likely.

That's not what they're suggesting.  In DA:O, the Warden was referred to solely by title and pronouns for the most part.  Surname was used sparingly in the Origins but dropped afterwards.

[Killdren88]

Lord Aesir wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

I think it would be a tad difficult for them to call you by your name. Because think about it. The VA would need to do hundreds of takes with hundreds of different names. We are far from where this can be done easily. The only way it can be done is if the name is already selected and that could be a name you do not like. So odds are people will refer to you as Inquisitor or a surename. Or both. With the exception of your LI with a pet name most likely.

That's not what they're suggesting.  In DA:O, the Warden was referred to solely by title and pronouns for the most part.  Surname was used sparingly in the Origins but dropped afterwards.

Indeed. I only saw use of the surename in Origins when I played a nobel really. Dwarf and human noble to be exact.

[Heimdall]

Killdren88 wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

Killdren88 wrote...

I think it would be a tad difficult for them to call you by your name. Because think about it. The VA would need to do hundreds of takes with hundreds of different names. We are far from where this can be done easily. The only way it can be done is if the name is already selected and that could be a name you do not like. So odds are people will refer to you as Inquisitor or a surename. Or both. With the exception of your LI with a pet name most likely.

That's not what they're suggesting.  In DA:O, the Warden was referred to solely by title and pronouns for the most part.  Surname was used sparingly in the Origins but dropped afterwards.

Indeed. I only saw use of the surename in Origins when I played a nobel really. Dwarf and human noble to be exact.

I think there might have been an instance in the Dalish Origin, but I'm not sure.

Modifié par Lord Aesir, 15 avril 2013 - 04:55 .

[lil yonce]

Session.

Modifié par Youth4Ever, 16 avril 2013 - 03:41 .

[Sylvius the Mad]

Killdren88 wrote...

I think it would be a tad difficult for them to call you by your name. Because think about it. The VA would need to do hundreds of takes with hundreds of different names. We are far from where this can be done easily. The only way it can be done is if the name is already selected and that could be a name you do not like. So odds are people will refer to you as Inquisitor or a surename. Or both. With the exception of your LI with a pet name most likely.

How often do people address you by name?

It happens in books, a lot, to indicate who is being addressed, but in cinema (and the real world) you don't see it as much.  The stage directions in plays are an excellent example of how people speak - they speak to each other, but they don't always address each other.

I assert that the characters in these games almost never need to use the PC's name at all, particularly given that they always speak in cinematic scenes, where the camera work and animation can make it clear who is being addressed.

There is little or no need for the NPCs ever to speak the PC's name, particularly if the PC has some sort of title or position of which a given speaker is aware.

Look at the voiced lines in NWN and NWN2.  Those games were voiced (NWN2 more than NWN), and both games let the player assign his own character's name.  And that worked just fine.  It can work again.

This is one instance where the voice-overs have cost us something that they didn't need to cost us.  Yes, with text-based dialogue, the lines could contain variables like %CHARNAME% to insert into a line whatever the player had chosen, and with voiced dialogue we can't do that.  But with voiced dialogue, we don't need to do that, because we have other means to indicate to whom an NPC is speaking.

There is no reason at all to force a name on the PC in any BioWare game.  Not one.  Even in ME, where it makes sense for barked forms of address in a military environment, Shepard had a rank - NPCs sould have used it.

[Noctis Augustus]

Augustus if Tevinter. If Orlesian then, Guillory.

Modifié par ibbikiookami, 15 avril 2013 - 08:59 .

[EmperorSahlertz]

It holds the purpose of making us play the character BioWare wants us to. BioWare wants us to play Hawke and Shepard, not "super fanfic guy#4". Furthermore, having our surname fixed subtracts and exact amount of 0 from your roleplay oppertunities, it merely allows for NPCs to call you by name. Which also happens a lot more often in real life than you apparently think....

[Sylvius the Mad]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...

It holds the purpose of making us play the character BioWare wants us to. BioWare wants us to play Hawke and Shepard, not "super fanfic guy#4".

That didn't used to be necessary.  What changed?

I have no desire to roleplay my characters any differently now from how I did in 2009, or 1997, or 1989.

[lil yonce]

How games are made and who they're made for have changed. I hadn't been born in 1989 and was five years old in 1997. New audience. I wouldn't play Bioware games if they hadn't changed at all from a by-gone era of gaming.

[MerinTB]

EmperorSahlertz wrote...
It holds the purpose of making us play the character BioWare wants us to. BioWare wants us to play Hawke and Shepard, not "super fanfic guy#4". Furthermore, having our surname fixed subtracts and exact amount of 0 from your roleplay oppertunities, it merely allows for NPCs to call you by name. Which also happens a lot more often in real life than you apparently think....

1 - It's not fan fiction if it is your character you created.  See, you have this backwards.  You playing out "your version of Shepard or Hawke" IS what writing fan fiction is.  You know, spinning your take on someone else's character(s and intellectual properties.)  The vast, vast, vast amount of role-playing games are made for you to create your own character... not play as someone else's character.  In short, your fan fiction analogy is quite ironic.

2 - It subtracts from people who don't want their character to be named Hawke or Shepard.  It removes on the fundamental parts of creating your own character for role-playing... naming your characer.

3 - Most people don't call out people by name unless in a large group where eye contact might not be enough to indicate whom you are addressing.  In small groups, of two to a half-dozen or so people, looking at your interlocutor is almost always both sufficient and all that is used.  The utilization of someone's name is smaller groups is often used for emphasis of some sort--quite often patronizing or belittling.  This can be done as effectively with titles, ranks, etc.

The only benefit to a fixed name for the MC in a game is for fixed narrative purposes, not role-playing purposes.  It is EASIER for the writers to have a name to reference while working, and dialog is easier to write if you don't have to walk around the MC's name (this is easily solved with text, however, as a simple $tring can be used to call for the CHARNAME.)

Modifié par MerinTB, 15 avril 2013 - 09:36 .

[Herky]

Jong Un

[upsettingshorts]

Fix the whole name.

[Dingo]

How about ... Nancy
...
...
...
...
no?

[ManOfSteel]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fix the whole name.

I'd be totally fine with this.

[Malanek]

AtreiyaN7 wrote...

I was going to say Torquemada, but someone beat me to on the first page. *SIGH*

I don't understand why so many people want to associate the character they are going to be playing with a medieval Hitler:huh:

[The Hierophant]

The inquisitor's surname should be Whiskeyjack.

[EmperorSahlertz]

I would have no problem with a completely fixed name.. Actually I would prefer that, because taking control of such a character is true roleplay. You are given a role, and it is up to you how to play it. What some old school D&D players want, is rolecreation, where they decide everything, which is not exactly roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fix the whole name.

Fix no aspect of the character.

See?  I can do it, too.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Youth4Ever wrote...

How games are made and who they're made for have changed. I hadn't been born in 1989 and was five years old in 1997. New audience. I wouldn't play Bioware games if they hadn't changed at all from a by-gone era of gaming.

I didn't say the games shouldn't have changed at all.  I said they shouldn't flatly prohibit the playstyle around which they used to be based.

Shooters aren't exactly the same as they were in 1993 (when DOOM was released), but the fundamental gameplay (maneouvre from a first-person perspective - target and trigger weapons in real time) hasn't changed at all.  It's been tweaked - a lot - but that core is still there.

Roleplaying games shouldn't have changed more fundamentally than that.

[Maverick827]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Upsettingshorts wrote...

Fix the whole name.

Fix no aspect of the character.

See?  I can do it, too.

Yeah, but you don't have the luxury of not being you and not having your reputation of belligerently opposing a large majority of advancements in gaming because it doesn't allow you to play some fringe, nonsense character anymore.

[Sylvius the Mad]

If I can play a nonsensical character, then there probably isn't any character you would want to play that would be forbidden. Having the game meet my standards would benefit you. It would grant you more freedom to roleplay.

And I dispute that most of those new features are "advancements." That you call them that only demonstrates your bias.

[Dhiro]

General Inquisitorface.

I don't mind a fixed surname - DA:O, DA:A and DA II all have them - but I'd prefer a customizable first name.

[Maverick827]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

If I can play a nonsensical character, then there probably isn't any character you would want to play that would be forbidden.

This is true.

Having the game meet my standards would benefit you. It would grant you more freedom to roleplay.

Not really.  You and I obviously role play in different ways.  To me, no player-character voice acting (not quite the focus of this thread, but something I think everyone knows you support) is immersion-breaking.  Not being able to be addressed by name is similarly immersion-breaking to me.

And I dispute that most of those new features are "advancements." That you call them that only demonstrates your bias.

Yeah, I'm biased.  You're biased.  This whole courtroom is biased!

I think it's pretty fair to classify, say, voice acting as an advancement because it's not like older game developers consciously decided to not have any; it just wasn't technologically possible.  No developer today is eschewing virtual reality because they think it might detract from their game: it's just not even something that's on the table right now.  

If you could go back in time and offer your beloved BioWare circa 1995 the technology to fully voice act the player like they have now, do you think they would say "no thanks, that seems like a regression?"  No, they would probably be like "no soup for you!," because it would be 1995.