254 réponses à ce sujet

[TheInquisitor]

I don't think they should give him a surname like Hawke or Shepard. That way they feel more like out character, if they just refer to him/her as 'Inquisitor'

[Zyree]

Destiny_1989 wrote...
Or, if all else fails: Poirot

 Perfection. I second this

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But to throw even more water on your theory, there are some common reasons to use names while in conversation:

1. Introductions/greetings. "Hail, Sylvius. I am Hoorayforicecream."
2. Conversations involving more than two people. "Come on, Hoorayforicecream. Help me convince Sylvius he is wrong."
3. Speaking about a third party. "I've heard of this Sylvius before..."
4. Emphasis. "No, Sylvius, I will not do ask you ask!"
5. Questioning. "Sylvius? What do you mean?"

Except most of those don't sound natural at all.  I suggest:

1. "Hail.  I am Sylvius the Mad."  After all, if I'm greeting you, do I know your name?  And if I'm greeting you, isn't it obvious whom I'm addressin?

2. "Come, on" I said, swatting your arm to get your attention, "Help me convince him he's wrong."

3. Speaking about a third party.  This I'll grant, but if they're speaking about the PC in the PC's absence, should we be seeing this scene at all?  I've argued before that we should not, as the PC isn't there to see it.

4. In what was is "No!  I will not do as you ask!" less resolute?

5. Questioning.  I will again grant that this isn't an awkward phrasing (unlike most of your examples), but it also isn't a necessary phrasing, particularly when we have cinematic direction to tell us what's going on.

[hoorayforicecream]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

hoorayforicecream wrote...

But to throw even more water on your theory, there are some common reasons to use names while in conversation:

1. Introductions/greetings. "Hail, Sylvius. I am Hoorayforicecream."
2. Conversations involving more than two people. "Come on, Hoorayforicecream. Help me convince Sylvius he is wrong."
3. Speaking about a third party. "I've heard of this Sylvius before..."
4. Emphasis. "No, Sylvius, I will not do ask you ask!"
5. Questioning. "Sylvius? What do you mean?"

Except most of those don't sound natural at all.  I suggest:

1. "Hail.  I am Sylvius the Mad."  After all, if I'm greeting you, do I know your name?  And if I'm greeting you, isn't it obvious whom I'm addressin?

Doesn't work when addressing a group, which is the default situation - the PC and companions.

2. "Come, on" I said, swatting your arm to get your attention, "Help me convince him he's wrong."

Are you seriously suggesting that the player character act without your express direction?

3. Speaking about a third party.  This I'll grant, but if they're speaking about the PC in the PC's absence, should we be seeing this scene at all?  I've argued before that we should not, as the PC isn't there to see it.

The PC can never eavesdrop.

4. In what was is "No!  I will not do as you ask!" less resolute?

Addressing a group, or multiple options.

5. Questioning.  I will again grant that this isn't an awkward phrasing (unlike most of your examples), but it also isn't a necessary phrasing, particularly when we have cinematic direction to tell us what's going on.

Your suggestions would require adding an additional series of requirements to the writers for no appreciable gain, aside from your own preference. I do not think this is an efficient use of writer zots.

I also noticed how you ignored the part where you were completely wrong about plays and theater.

[Sylvius the Mad]

hoorayforicecream wrote...

Are you seriously suggesting that the player character act without your express direction?

Of course not.  The PC can speak character names, because all the NPC names are assigned by the writers.

We're taking about NPC behaviour, here.  We must be, as only NPCs need to address or refer to the PC by name.  Unless the PC refers to himself in the third person, this situation can't arise.

Are you paying attention to this conversation?

The PC can never eavesdrop.

If the PC is close enough eavesdrop, then the PC can be indicated using camera tricks rather than his name.

Addressing a group, or multiple options.

Again, it needn't be so written.

Your suggestions would require adding an additional series of requirements to the writers for no appreciable gain, aside from your own preference. I do not think this is an efficient use of writer zots.

I argue that adjusting the writing in this way would produce more natural dialogue, thus benefitting all of you.  If I were arguing only for my preference, I'd be calling for elimination of all voice-over.  But I'm not doing that.

I'm working within the limitations of supposedly modern game design to offer constructive suggestions.

I also noticed how you ignored the part where you were completely wrong about plays and theater.

I didn't think the Death of a Salesman exerpts addressed my point.  The language there is equally contrived and unnatural.

Not all written works are written with the same authorial objectives.  The Catcher in the Rye, for example, is about the voice, not the narrative.  That's highly unusual.  That the book is a classic doesn't mean that we can point to it as evidence that that's how books work.

Modifié par Sylvius the Mad, 18 avril 2013 - 05:47 .

[omgodzilla]

Abdul Aziz

[ADelusiveMan]

Harkness

[BrowncoatN7]

Youth4Ever wrote...

lament.ballad wrote...

Ximénez, Biggles or Fang depending on your background choices.

Already suggested. 

Oh 

How about Jia? Grand Inquisitor Jia. Yes, I know it's a first name.

[Osena109]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

I for one am still on the boat that the Inquisitor must be the child of Ser Jory.

ser joy's child would only be 9 years old form my estaments as she was still heavy with child 

[Dino]

The only thing I want Bioware to release right now is the surname so everyone can STOP calling the protagonist the Inquisitor.

[Osena109]

DavorTheDragon wrote...

The only thing I want Bioware to release right now is the surname so everyone can STOP calling the protagonist the Inquisitor.

But he is the inquisitor i still hope is callede the inquisitor commander but called commander for short  commander Stark

[Dino]

Osena109 wrote...

DavorTheDragon wrote...

The only thing I want Bioware to release right now is the surname so everyone can STOP calling the protagonist the Inquisitor.

But he is the inquisitor i still hope is callede the inquisitor commander but called commander for short  commander Stark

In my opinion, Inquisitor is a title/role. The protagonist's role has NOT been confirmed yet. 

[Osena109]

DavorTheDragon wrote...

Osena109 wrote...

DavorTheDragon wrote...

The only thing I want Bioware to release right now is the surname so everyone can STOP calling the protagonist the Inquisitor.

But he is the inquisitor i still hope is callede the inquisitor commander but called commander for short  commander Stark

In my opinion, Inquisitor is a title/role. The protagonist's role has NOT been confirmed yet. 

That might be true but the way i see it we have been a warden/warden commander the most importan person(Not in MHO) next step is a inquisitor/seeker

[Maria Caliban]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I guess I walked into that.

EDIT: Not to move the goalposts or anything, but I'd be curious to see the amount of times characters are referred to by their names in a television drama. The only reason I bring this up is that the volume of dialouge in a Bioware video game dwarfs that of a play or a movie. Its only real correlation would be, roughly, a season's worth of TV.

Again, not trying to change the argument, just trying to continue the conversation.

The thing about TV is that every episode is written with the assumption that it could be someone's first episode. There's a ridiculous amount of repetition in the average TV show. Though in a well written show it's put to good use.

[Arppis]

Armstrong.

[hoorayforicecream]

[quote]Sylvius the Mad wrote...

[quote]hoorayforicecream wrote...

Are you seriously suggesting that the player character act without your express direction?[/quote]
Of course not.  The PC can speak character names, because all the NPC names are assigned by the writers.

We're taking about NPC behaviour, here.  We must be, as only NPCs need to address or refer to the PC by name.  Unless the PC refers to himself in the third person, this situation can't arise.

Are you paying attention to this conversation?[/quote]

You don't think it would be unnatural if the PC were be the only person in the game who is never addressed by name?

I'd find that to be the very textbook example of unnatural.

[quote]
[quote]The PC can never eavesdrop.[/quote]
If the PC is close enough eavesdrop, then the PC can be indicated using camera tricks rather than his name.[/quote]

So now, in addition to needing more writer zots, you also need additional cinematic designer zots. I dislike your cinematic direction, and think it is more suited to a cartoon show.

[quote]
[quote]Addressing a group, or multiple options.[/quote]
Again, it needn't be so written.
[quote]Your suggestions would require adding an additional series of requirements to the writers for no appreciable gain, aside from your own preference. I do not think this is an efficient use of writer zots.[/quote]
I argue that adjusting the writing in this way would produce more natural dialogue, thus benefitting all of you.  If I were arguing only for my preference, I'd be calling for elimination of all voice-over.  But I'm not doing that.[/quote]

I dispute that it sounds more natural. People call my name all the time when addressing me. When they say good morning, when they acknowledge my presence, when they ask my opinion, when we are in a group, all sorts of times on a daily basis. Your experience is not universal.

[quote]
I'm working within the limitations of supposedly modern game design to offer constructive suggestions.
[quote]I also noticed how you ignored the part where you were completely wrong about plays and theater.[/quote]
I didn't think the Death of a Salesman exerpts addressed my point.  The language there is equally contrived and unnatural.

Not all written works are written with the same authorial objectives.  The Catcher in the Rye, for example, is about the voice, not the narrative.  That's highly unusual.  That the book is a classic doesn't mean that we can point to it as evidence that that's how books work.
[/quote]

So you tell people to read a play, then dismiss two of the most famous classical plays out there - the sort that people, when told to read a play, would most likely turn to. But what other examples would I need to prove you wrong that you wouldn't dismiss? Should I point at Wicked?

[quote]Glinda: Elphie, wait! Where are you going?
Elphaba: Oh no! There are no more stairs! This might be the attic...
Glinda: Elphaba, listen to me...
Elphaba: I have to barricade the door! She Picks Up A Broom And Places It Over A Trap Door.
Glinda: Elphaba, why couldn't you have stayed calm for once instead of flying off the handle?[/quote]

Chicago?

[quote][Roxie Hart]

Say it again, Fred.

[Fred Casely]

Jesus.

[Roxie Hart]

Hey, why is the hurry? Amos ain't be home until midnight. Freddie? Fred? Hey, you know, I don't like you to feel like I'm nagging or anything. But don't you think it's about time for me to meet your friend down at the Onyx? It's been a month since you told him about me. I know. Cause that was the night they met Kelly, plus her husband and her sister. You know, they said you found them in a kit together. Guess from where it from. Amos opened it to somebody else. I throw him a party. - You're not going away, right?

[Fred Casely]

- It's getting late.[/quote]

But fine. If it isn't Romeo and Juliet, Death of a Salesman, Chicago, or Wicked, please give some examples of well-known plays where nobody addresses anyone by name and everyone speaks "naturally". I've given four by different playwrights that have all achieved some form of notoriety. You could at least put up a few to support your thesis, especially after telling people to "read a play".

[Fast Jimmy]

Maria Caliban wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I guess I walked into that.

EDIT: Not to move the goalposts or anything, but I'd be curious to see the amount of times characters are referred to by their names in a television drama. The only reason I bring this up is that the volume of dialouge in a Bioware video game dwarfs that of a play or a movie. Its only real correlation would be, roughly, a season's worth of TV.

Again, not trying to change the argument, just trying to continue the conversation.

The thing about TV is that every episode is written with the assumption that it could be someone's first episode. There's a ridiculous amount of repetition in the average TV show. Though in a well written show it's put to good use.

Thats fair enough. I am trying to think of a form of media aside from video games where there would copious amounts of dialogue, but where no viewer would be able (or, at the very least, likely) to be seeing said dialogue in the proper order of events. I'm not really coming up with anything. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 18 avril 2013 - 01:58 .

[Thetford]

Fetherstonhaugh (pronounced Fanshaw)

[Lluthren]

Bob, Cullen, Septimus, Baldwin, La Vallee/Le Vallon, Argus, Serran, Shardan, L'hovain, Lovain.

[PaulSX]

I kinda hope the main character is nameless this time. The preset background always ruins my role playing experience.

[lil yonce]

Arrington.

[Matthew Ryder]

Fidelis