153 réponses à ce sujet

[Dabrikishaw]

Entertaining.

[Thomas Andresen]

Firky wrote...

I think it's about context. Don't put in a "mute" character for the hell of it. Put him/her in because the story demands it. And take every measure not to mess it up.

This. I very much believe that this is the path that BioWare always strives for. Even if it can be hard to not blunder on it.

Sejborg wrote...

jillabender wrote...

Respectfully, I think this a case where the right of people with intellectual disabilities to be treated like individuals and respected as people should trump what non-disabled people might find personally "interesting."

Where do this come from? Why the hell do people think I want mentally disabled to not be respected as people?

Simply put, you do not. Whether you know it or not, your posts show a sadly common lack of respect for people with disabilities.

Sejborg wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
You phrase things ****tily. I now get that you're not actually actively trying to compare someone with a mental disability with an animal. Though a lot of your posts in this thread still comes across as prejudiced (albeit prejudice born of ignorance), just so yah know. 

Not really. From the moment you entered this thread you have taken my comments out of context and for some reason just assumed that I had some sinister motives. That you jump to conclusions and start fighting a straw man is your own problem. It would suit you to keep a clear head when discussing. People that want to be offended, will be offended no matter how I express myself.

You're not so much offensive as disrespectful. If the former follows the latter, that's a personal thing, and not something about which reason can do anything.

Sejborg wrote...

I believe self-inflicted censorship is also very harmful. In an effort to not misrepresent or harm anyone what so ever, people have now started to ask for some things to not be included - irregardless if that something very well could be quite interesting. This half wit I propose wouldn't have any clinical diagnosis. This is set in a fantasy setting and the character would just be unable to say anything else than one word. That is just how this character is born. The character wouldn't be a representation of the "mentally disabled community" anymore than Sandal or Hodor is. "He's a bit simple" as Bodahn puts it. How harmful is that representation?

And as to your fear of this character misrepresenting and causing harm to the mentally disabled; if people are looking to videogames for education and enlightenment then I believe we have truly found the half-wits. If you know what I mean? 

It's about respect. And most people are flailing in ignorance when it comes to showing respect to the mentally disabled. Even worse, most people are awkward about it. They are more comfortable discussing massacres and STDs than mental disabilities. Don't come here and tell me that I'm wrong, or that it's right, that it's how it should be.

For the record, Sandal is offensive. Personally, I remain unaffected, because I am able to choose what affects me, but that is an effect of AS. Or maybe it is that I shut out or ignore the feelings that I do not want to deal with, or maybe that I do not understand my own feelings, I do not know. Either way, I wouldn't have to look very hard for reasons to be offended by Sandal.

It do require less from the writer as well. When the writer has decided upon the personality of the character, then the writer just needs to add an amount of the word decided upon and how he would like the word expressed by the voice actor. Coming up with real sentences is more complicated.

There is a lot more to writing a character than just writing their dialogue. Firky and Plaintiff, among others, could probably say a lot more about that than I could.

While you might be right in the assessment that "less dialogue == less work", doing a "disabled" character requires a lot more work than has evidently been put into Sandal(I can speak about Hodor, or whatever he's called, as I haven't seen the tv series, and A Song of Ice And Fire is still on my 'list'), to avoid making the character offensive.

Yeah. I don't know why some people think the half-wit should serve as a dog. That is just a straw man argument. As for the other things. The half-wit could still very react to how you treated him you know. Perhaps he wouldn't like it if the player was patronizing or whatever the writer decides for his personality.

It's not about what what you want out of it, it's about the associations people would make. And they will make them. The association could be made by the non-disabled(who naturally will proceed to make inappropriate jokes about it on the internet), or people with disabilities(who would not inconcievably take it personally).

[Fredward]

Sejborg wrote...

Foopydoopydoo wrote...
You phrase things ****tily. I now get that you're not actually actively trying to compare someone with a mental disability with an animal. Though a lot of your posts in this thread still comes across as prejudiced (albeit prejudice born of ignorance), just so yah know. 

Not really. From the moment you entered this thread you have taken my comments out of context and for some reason just assumed that I had some sinister motives. That you jump to conclusions and start fighting a straw man is your own problem. It would suit you to keep a clear head when discussing. People that want to be offended, will be offended no matter how I express myself. 

I've come into this thread offended because the first post compares someone with a mental disability to a dog. Which you don't even seem to realize is wrong and keep doing.

You keep focusing on "NO VOICE NO MONEY! BRILLIANT!" and make a comparison with the dog, you're ignoring the fact that someone with a mental disability, to be represented fairly, would have to have a LOT more interactions than a dog. Which totally counteracts your argument of a cheap yet interesting character. So that leaves the option of spending a lot of resources on this character to make him/her a fair representation or using the amount of resources you're suggesting and dealing with a caricature. Which would be bad.

Also, what she said:

jillabender wrote...

Sejborg wrote...

Where do this come from? Why the hell do people think I want mentally disabled to not be respected as people?

I
didn't think you were actually condoning disrespectful treatment of
people with disabilities, but I take issue with your statement "I could
care less if a character is an accurate portrayal of something," because
I believe that misleading depictions of people with intellectual
disabilities can be very harmful.

I also take issue with the
idea that portraying a character with an intellectual disability and
severe language impairment would require less effort than a non-disabled
character on the part of the writers. I don't believe that it's
possible to do justice to a character with an intellectual disability or
to portray him or her as a complex individual without devoting the same
care and attention to the character that one would a non-disabled
character. But if all you meant was that a character who speaks and
vocalizes little might require less time spent on voice recording, I
suppose that could be true.

I think some people may have been
bothered by the idea that a disabled character would fulfill a similar
function to the dog in the game simply because it brings up
uncomfortable associations that you didn't intend. In my time at the
group home I mentioned, I became very aware that even well-intentioned
people can end up treating people with developmental disabilities,
intellectual disabilities, or cognitive delays more like pets rather
than people, without even being aware of it. I don't believe there's
anyone for whom it doesn't take some conscious effort to avoid
unintentionally treating people who are different in ways that are
patronizing - myself included.

RebelAgainstSin81 wrote...

Also,
there are plenty of people with disabilities than can complete
sentences and have conversations just fine. I'm almost convinced now
that a character with a mental disability is almost necessary, for no
other reason than to educate people that not all forms of mental
disability result in extreme mental retardation.

Thank
you for addressing that misconception. It's very difficult to generalize
about people with mental disabilities, or even about people with a
particular category of mental disability or a particular diagnosis,
because although they share some experiences in common, no two people
are affected by a disability in exactly the same way.

Modifié par Foopydoopydoo, 27 avril 2013 - 06:44 .

[Sejborg]

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...

[quote]Firky wrote...

I think it's about context. Don't put in a "mute" character for the hell of it. Put him/her in because the story demands it. And take every measure not to mess it up.
[/quote]
This. I very much believe that this is the path that BioWare always strives for. Even if it can be hard to not blunder on it.[/quote]

If that truly was the case, then that would only leave us with Alistair and Morrigan in DAO. 

[quote]Sejborg wrote...

[quote]jillabender wrote...

Respectfully, I think this a case where the right of people with intellectual disabilities to be treated like individuals and respected as people should trump what non-disabled people might find personally "interesting."[/quote]

Where do this come from? Why the hell do people think I want mentally disabled to not be respected as people?
[/quote]
Simply put, you do not. Whether you know it or not, your posts show a sadly common lack of respect for people with disabilities.[/quote]

People with disabities in general now? This is getting interesting; or did you only mean to say that I lacked respect for people with mental disabilities that render them unable to say anything but one specific word? If the former then I believe you are fighting a similar straw man to the one Foopydoopydoo have been struggling with. If the latter then please be specific. Is it because I say such a character is easy to write? Or is it because I called him a half-wit? Or is it something else? 

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...
You're not so much offensive as disrespectful. If the former follows the latter, that's a personal thing, and not something about which reason can do anything.[/quote]
How so? Please make a list of how I have been disrespectful and we can take it from there. 

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...
It's about respect. And most people are flailing in ignorance when it comes to showing respect to the mentally disabled. Even worse, most people are awkward about it. They are more comfortable discussing massacres and STDs than mental disabilities. Don't come here and tell me that I'm wrong, or that it's right, that it's how it should be.[/quote]

Seems to me that part of the problem is that this specific subject is taboo where you come from. Where I come from we don't concider it as such. We have had quite a bit of focus on mentally disabled people and especially people with downs syndrom. Two of such even became tv stars through a series of documentaries. And just to be sure - I am not asking for a companion with downs syndrom. 

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...
For the record, Sandal is offensive. Personally, I remain unaffected, because I am able to choose what affects me, but that is an effect of AS. Or maybe it is that I shut out or ignore the feelings that I do not want to deal with, or maybe that I do not understand my own feelings, I do not know. Either way, I wouldn't have to look very hard for reasons to be offended by Sandal.[/quote]

That's fair. Some people are easily offended by some things. Is it because he scratches his ass, or because he often functions as comic relief all the while being mentally disabled?

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...
There is a lot more to writing a character than just writing their dialogue. Firky and Plaintiff, among others, could probably say a lot more about that than I could.[/quote]

Sure. You have to make a personality for him as well, and make sure he is consistent and stuff like that. However it is easy to write him when that is done. 

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...

While you might be right in the assessment that "less dialogue == less work", doing a "disabled" character requires a lot more work than has evidently been put into Sandal(I can speak about Hodor, or whatever he's called, as I haven't seen the tv series, and A Song of Ice And Fire is still on my 'list'), to avoid making the character offensive.[/quote]

It's too bad that none of you have read ASOIAF because then you would know about Hodor and he is pretty much what I am asking for. However I do start to think that you and others will find him offensive, though I don't know what one would find offensive about him. 

[quote]Thomas Andresen wrote...
[quote]
Yeah. I don't know why some people think the half-wit should serve as a dog. That is just a straw man argument. As for the other things. The half-wit could still very react to how you treated him you know. Perhaps he wouldn't like it if the player was patronizing or whatever the writer decides for his personality.
[/quote]
It's not about what what you want out of it, it's about the associations people would make. And they will make them. The association could be made by the non-disabled(who naturally will proceed to make inappropriate jokes about it on the internet), or people with disabilities(who would not inconcievably take it personally).[/quote]

I think I have a bit more belief in humanity than you. People attacking mentally disabled because of a videogame character? If so, then I think we have truly found the half-wits. If you know what I mean? 

[Rawgrim]

We allready had Merril.

[BouncyFrag]

Rawgrim wrote...

We allready had Merril.

Exhibit A

[Volus Warlord]

HORDOR HORDOR HORDOR

No.

Modifié par Volus Warlord, 27 avril 2013 - 05:35 .

[DarkKnightHolmes]

1) Alistair
2) Oghren
3) Velanna
4) Merrill

We already had 4 half-wits.

[Sejborg]

Volus Warlord wrote...

HORDOR HORDOR HORDOR

No.

I'm pretty sure you mean:

HODOR HODOR HODOR

Yes.

 

[Hurbster]

XX-Pyro wrote...

We had Anders already.

Yup, beat me to it.

[Jessabeth]

I think there is a bit of confusion as to what the term half-wit is implying. I've seen many people make comments about mentally handicapped and developmentally challenged (which is understandable as half-wit has been an insult towards individuals with those problems), but a by the book dictionary definition would say that a half-wit is simply someone who is stupid or foolish or even someone who just lacks good sense.

I think the half-wit companion could be fulfilled without having to go anywhere near the dangerous territory of mentally challenged individuals. There are far too many ways that it would go wrong or be taken as making fun of an individual with enough stigma attached to them.

If we're talking about having someone who is silly in their foolishness or perhaps ignorant in ways that do not pertain to their mental state, then sure, I'd be for it.

[BouncyFrag]

Hows about Ruck?
http://t1.gstatic.co...lANpwK3zHiq4Y07

[DarkKnightHolmes]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Hows about Ruck?
-snip-

Dead.

[Fredward]

Sejborg wrote...
How so? Please make a list of how I have been disrespectful and we can take it from there. 

Since you asked...

Sejborg wrote...
Sorta like the dog but just a half-wit.

Sejborg wrote...
It do require less from the writer as well.
When the writer has decided upon the personality of the character, then
the writer just needs to add an amount of the word decided upon and how
he would like the word expressed by the voice actor. Coming up with real
sentences is more complicated.

Not offensive per se but with a half-wit companion who can express themselves affectively, as you have stated in this thread numerous times, with a single word you'd also expect your voiced protag to have a variety of reponses to it. Responses that would go into more depth than with a dog. Responses that would cost money. Get where I'm going? Your argument doesn't make any sense if you're going for fair representation + cheap.

But luckily you're not...

Sejborg wrote...
A humanoid clearly opens up other possibilies
in terms of storytelling than a dog. And really I could care less if a
character is an accurate portrayal of something. I just want the
characters to be interesting. Sometimes accurate and interesting is on
the same side of the rope. Other times accurate is just boring. 

So you don't really want any kind of accurate representation or depth to go along with it, you just want interesting. I suppose it's for the best that you never go into any depth about what exactly "interesting" entails.

[Firky]

BouncyFrag wrote...

Rawgrim wrote...

We allready had Merril.

Exhibit A

I love Merrill so much.

I don't remember that bit. I wonder what happened if you didn't have her in the party. Like, did they cotton on to you and attack anyway, for a different reason, I wonder? I assume so.

If not, like if they ran away to check on the fire, that'd be pretty cool.

If one of your characters (no matter what their verbal repertoire) kept getting you into trouble like that, and you knew not taking them wouldn't, without metaknowledge, that'd be interesting to explore, I reckon. There'd have to be a reason to take them.

[AmstradHero]

Sejborg wrote...

Thomas Andresen wrote...
There is a lot more to writing a character than just writing their dialogue. Firky and Plaintiff, among others, could probably say a lot more about that than I could.

Sure. You have to make a personality for him as well, and make sure he is consistent and stuff like that. However it is easy to write him when that is done. 

If you think that is all is takes, obviously you've never actually tried to write a piece of fiction (in any form) of any great length. By that kind of appraisal, making a video game is just making some levels and putting some monsters in them.

Sejborg wrote...
It's too bad that none of you have read ASOIAF because then you would know about Hodor and he is pretty much what I am asking for. However I do start to think that you and others will find him offensive, though I don't know what one would find offensive about him. 

I've read it, and I love it, but Hodor would not really be an interesting character to have in a video game. He would likely feel flat, one-dimensional and shallow in comparison to almost every NPC. Hodor works because he's off to the side and he never really has to do anything except act as a pack mule (phrased this way to avoid spoilers). Yes, he has a role with the characters, but translated to a party member, that role is dead boring.

Compare, for example, the relationship people had with Dog to any other party NPC. Sure, there were people who liked Dog, but how many people would have said "Dog is my favourite NPC." I'm going to guess around about 0.0001%.  A party NPC that can't communicate isn't interesting. Sure, they're comic relief as far as other NPCs go (e.g. Sandal and his "ENCHANTMENT!"), but there is no way such a character is engaging for a long term companion compared to one you can actually have a conversation with.


That said, Sejborg, I will actually support you on the issue you raise where you say that such a companion would be equivalent to Dog from DAO. For everyone who is attacking you in this point, I would say "calm down and relax". I would, however, stipulate that such a character would only be equivalent on the level of game mechanics.  An evaluation of someone in real life compared to how your interaction with them would be implented in a game are two very different things. I would ask that no-one conflate the two.

There is no point getting offended by this, but as someone who considers game design and implementation, if you were looking at such a character to have dialogue implemented by "Hodoring", then it would functionally be similar to Dog. THAT IS ALL. I do not believe Sejborg was equating half-wits (or people with learning disabilities) to a dog. The sentiment may not have been expressed well, but please try to have a rational discussion rather than getting out the torches and pitchforks due to phrasing.


Lastly, as an alternative to the complete half-wit, and I cannot believe that no-one has mentioned it yet - Minsc from the BG series. Minsc was... slightly challenged in the mental department, but he wasn't a Hodor. I don't want to see BioWare repeat a character, but they already crafted someone with some limitations on their mental faculties and created a character that many people still love to this day. A character with so many limitations that they can't be a functional, communicative party member would be far less interesting than any character that can, but that doesn't mean you can't have a character with some mental shortcomings.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 27 avril 2013 - 11:24 .

[Sejborg]

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
How so? Please make a list of how I have been disrespectful and we can take it from there. 

Since you asked...

Sejborg wrote...
Sorta like the dog but just a half-wit.

You keep taking this out of context. This is only in the sense of the characters cost to produce. Not how he is to be treated or how he should act. I thought you had finally understood this? Guess I was wrong. 

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
It do require less from the writer as well.
When the writer has decided upon the personality of the character, then
the writer just needs to add an amount of the word decided upon and how
he would like the word expressed by the voice actor. Coming up with real
sentences is more complicated.

Not offensive per se but with a half-wit companion who can express themselves affectively, as you have stated in this thread numerous times, with a single word you'd also expect your voiced protag to have a variety of reponses to it. Responses that would go into more depth than with a dog. Responses that would cost money. Get where I'm going? Your argument doesn't make any sense if you're going for fair representation + cheap.

But luckily you're not...

This is on your list of how I am being offensive? Whatever, "per se".  As you would remember from the other games, the different companions all have some interactions with one another. Even with the low cost character. Maybe some conversations might need a bit more effort, to make the character more believable; I'm sure the writers are able to make the propor decisions.

Foopydoopydoo wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
A humanoid clearly opens up other possibilies
in terms of storytelling than a dog. And really I could care less if a
character is an accurate portrayal of something. I just want the
characters to be interesting. Sometimes accurate and interesting is on
the same side of the rope. Other times accurate is just boring. 

So you don't really want any kind of accurate representation or depth to go along with it, you just want interesting. I suppose it's for the best that you never go into any depth about what exactly "interesting" entails.

Yeah. Once again you are unable to comprehend what you read. You are quoting something but you are getting your very own special meaning out of it; probably because you are so set on being offended.

Why do you think I don't want any depth? Don't you think depht could make a character interesting? As for accurate representation: if it makes the character more interesting, then by all means add it. If it makes the character boring then I would rather pass on the accurate representation. Yes, I know, extremely offensive of me to say something like that. 

And no - I am not going into a lengthy discussion of what makes a character interesting as that would derail the entire thread. If you want to discuss that, then go make another topic about it. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 27 avril 2013 - 11:27 .

[Sejborg]

AmstradHero wrote...

I've read it, and I love it, but Hodor would not really be an interesting character to have in a video game. He would likely feel flat, one-dimensional and shallow in comparison to almost every NPC. Hodor works because he's off to the side and he never really has to do anything except act as a pack mule (phrased this way to avoid spoilers). Yes, he has a role with the characters, but translated to a party member, that role is dead boring.

That is mostly a matter of taste but it's completely fair that you find him boring. I find that he adds a lot of humanity to the characters around him, and I find him interesting because you can't really be certain what is going on in his head. 

AmstradHero wrote...
Compare, for example, the relationship people had with Dog to any other party NPC. Sure, there were people who liked Dog, but how many people would have said "Dog is my favourite NPC." I'm going to guess around about 0.0001%.  A party NPC that can't communicate isn't interesting. Sure, they're comic relief as far as other NPCs go (e.g. Sandal and his "ENCHANTMENT!"), but there is no way such a character is engaging for a long term companion compared to one you can actually have a conversation with.

I never suggested that this character would be an awesome character like Morrigan or any of the other popular characters. However I do believe that this character can easily be a better character than the dog. That is why I suggested it. 

AmstradHero wrote...
Lastly, as an alternative to the complete half-wit, and I cannot believe that no-one has mentioned it yet - Minsc from the BG series. Minsc was... slightly challenged in the mental department, but he wasn't a Hodor. I don't want to see BioWare repeat a character, but they already crafted someone with some limitations on their mental faculties and created a character that many people still love to this day. A character with so many limitations that they can't be a functional, communicative party member would be far less interesting than any character that can, but that doesn't mean you can't have a character with some mental shortcomings.

Yeah. But this suggestion of a half-wit/Hodor character is primarily put forward because it would also be a low cost character. Sure, more is better, but you can't always get more without losing something else. So instead of wasting resources on yet another unpopular dog, I suggest using the resources on a Hodor character. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 28 avril 2013 - 12:22 .

[AmstradHero]

Sejborg wrote...
That is mostly a matter of taste but it's completely fair that you find him boring. I find that he adds a lot of humanity to the characters around him, and I find him interesting because you can't really be certain what is going on in his head.

I would say a base litmus test for a party NPC should at least be "would it be interesting to read a story with this character as the protagonist and written from their viewpoint?". If the answer is no, then I don't consider them to be a sufficiently interesting character to be a party NPC. Party NPCs should not be the focus of the adventure, but they should have suffificent character to be able to be the focus of a story themselves, else it's not really possible to develop their character to a level where they would make an interesting character for the player to interact with.  This is a fairly easy test to pass, but a character like Hodor fails it. He doesn't really have sufficient desires, goals, motivations, nuances or character foibles that make him an interesting character to interact with. He's a utility character. This doesn't mean he can't augment the main characters and make them feel and seem more human, but that doesn't inherently make him an interesting character. This is a very important distinction.

Sejborg wrote...
Yeah. But this suggestion of a half-wit/Hodor character is primarily put forward because it would also be a low cost character. Sure, more is better, but you can't always get more without losing something else. So instead of wasting resources on yet another unpopular dog, I suggest using the resources on a Hodor character. 

The problem is, you're only saving on the resources of one voice actor: the party NPC. You've still got to provide the resources for both genders of the protagonist to respond to any interaction they have with the NPC, which means you're only saving one-third of the time/money. Even then, you've still got to have that NPC's voice actor do SOME work. How many Hodor variations do you want them to record? What if they need to re-record those? Do you only get them to record small number of variations, and have the dialogue editors choose which Hodor they want to use? In Dragon Age, that means grabbing the right Hodor file (out of x number of files), copying it, and renaming it to match the appropriate string resource line. You've then got the "meesha-shooka-puppa" problem that exists in Kotor 1/2 and Jade Empire of having a small grabbag of lines that are in a "foreign language" to represent a vast variety of different lines and sentences and players going "hey, I've heard that exact voice cut before". This breaks immersion.

Worse, you end up with the player's character having to do a whole lot of translation/interpretation of their "dialogue", meaning that the player's character is doing a lot of action without the player's input. This is a bad thing; it removes player agency and has the player's character act as translator to tell the player "the half-wit is trying to tell me something". This takes the player out of their character, which is something we want to avoid. Remember how people don't like "autodialogue"? This kind of character means a lot of that. Also, you're only looking at this from the perspective of voice resources. This is only a small part of what is involved in making a character a party NPC.

Maybe to save on the dual gender PC recordings, you can get a second NPC to act as translator... but at that point, why not just have that second NPC as the character and make them a character that is actually engaging?  From a design perspective, I just don't see any real gains from making a character like this, particularly not when you're talking about all characters being fully voiced. Then if you're talking about a game where characters aren't voiced... you're not going to get the nuance of line delivery from your Hodoring.

In short, the gains really don't seem to outweigh the benefits from where I'm standing. I'd much rather see the (still significant) resources required to create such a character spent on a character that you could actually engage and interact with on a meaningful level.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 avril 2013 - 01:32 .

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...

I've read it, and I love it, but Hodor would not really be an interesting character to have in a video game. He would likely feel flat, one-dimensional and shallow in comparison to almost every NPC. Hodor works because he's off to the side and he never really has to do anything except act as a pack mule (phrased this way to avoid spoilers). Yes, he has a role with the characters, but translated to a party member, that role is dead boring.

I could totally see a Hodor character as a confidante. All of the interest in the dialogue would be about exploring what the protagonist could say, knowing Hodor is only ever going to say, "Hodor." Like, what are Hawke's deepest thoughts? I never felt I really knew them. Just a mask he or she wore for family and friends.

(Edit: PS. Also, if there were some unknown element as to exactly what the Hodor character could understand, the protagonist might struggle about whether the confidante relationship is harming him or wonder what actions he may take in response. Dunno. Just ideas. But I think its compelling.)

(I was trying to create a saarebas character a while back, with the Origins system, obviously. It was incredibly hard - and he was mute, to start with. I was doing a terrible job of it. But it really does raise possibilities - just in unexpected places. And, I agree that Dog functioned as a confidante sometimes - or a way to illustrate the other characters a bit, too.)

I was reflecting on Minsc. I just like the way Boo handles things that are too hard for him. And he's so brave and dependable.

Modifié par Firky, 28 avril 2013 - 02:36 .

[Firky]

PS. Just to be clear.

I don't mean "confidante" as in, "Oh Hodor, I can't decide where my affections lie, with that lusty pirate or the miserable elf."

I mean as in,

[visit a new area]

Hodor: Hodor.
Hawke: Hodor, are from this place?
Hodor: silence
Hawke: No, I don't suppose you are. Your features aren't dark in that way.
Hodor: silence
Hawke: All the North is good for is finding trouble, anyway.

Then, you've had a conversation with Hodor in which you've learned that Northerners have dark features and Hawke is wary of the North. Also, you're now wondering where Hodor originated from, even if there's no answer, yet.

Hawke may be less inclined to say to his sibling, "Well, here we are in the North, amoung these dark featured people and all we'll find is trouble here." They may already know his or her feelings on the North and what the locals look like.

(Well, I'm sure it wouldn't be that indelicate, but I think a silent companion is an opportunity.)

Edit: And, if it were to support the idea that the player is largely a blank slate, some of this stuff could be reinforcement, too. Some previous hint as to why the North is something to be wary of, or not, could influence whether or not your Hawke thinks it's likely to be trouble, in this kind of "thinking aloud" conversation. Whether or not you think it's trouble could influence how Hodor acts in the North, in some small way, too, even though he didn't reply.

Modifié par Firky, 28 avril 2013 - 03:53 .

[PsychoBlonde]

I probably wouldn't find a mentally sub-functional character interesting (I'm not 'enchanted' with Sandal, even), but it might be interesting to have a character who merely SEEMS to be a half-wit due to, say, not speaking the language well at first or having some physical disability (like a Saarebas) that prevents them from communicating.

[PsychoBlonde]

Firky wrote...

Then, you've had a conversation with Hodor in which you've learned that Northerners have dark features and Hawke is wary of the North. Also, you're now wondering where Hodor originated from, even if there's no answer, yet.

I'd like to see more of this type of thing where instead of the PC being an ignoramus who must ask everybody about everything, they actually contribute knowledge to conversations.  I don't think it's necessary to have a silent companion to allow for this, though.  This is a feature that really ought to shine when you have a voiced PC but they have yet to implement it that I've seen.  Instead, the PC mostly just emotes.

[Firky]

^ I was just adding an edit about that. That might be partly to do with the idea that the protag is supposed to be largely "blank slate" but I think you're right, and that a protagonist, like Hawke, could have more knowledge and (vaguely) defined opinions.(And they could certainly have the option to ask questions about things that would stimulate the player's imagination, rather than just provide the answer. I agree there, too.)

Modifié par Firky, 28 avril 2013 - 03:46 .

[PsychoBlonde]

Firky wrote...

^ I was just adding an edit about that. That might be partly to do with the idea that the protag is supposed to be largely "blank slate" but I think you're right, and that a protagonist, like Hawke, could have more knowledge and (vaguely) defined opinions.(And they could certainly have the option to ask questions about things that would stimulate the player's imagination, rather than just provide the answer. I agree there, too.)

There's no reason why the opinions have to be vague or half-hearted if they're included in different dialog options.  I just don't see why the protagonist has to be somebody who's never heard of 90% of the stuff in Thedas that should be commonish knowledge like, say, the Carta or Arlathan or the details of the Chant of Light or what an elven Keeper is or ghasts.  Any half-skilled writer learns how to write dialog in such a way that all necessary information is revealed without making any conversation participant unnecessarily sound like an ignoramus.  Simply asking questions that are more perceptive than "tell me about X" or "what the heck is X?" 

Of course, I'd love it if the protagonist would sometimes bust out even with exceptionally rare knowledge like, hey, I've read the Qun or I can read Dwarf or We once built a small one of these as an exercise or I fought in a battle just like this.  I really loved it in KotOR II that your character apparently was REALLY GOOD at understanding languages (particularly the beep-whistle one that droids use) and so never had trouble communicating even when companions were asking you "WHAT'D HE SAY?!?!"