153 réponses à ce sujet

[PsychoBlonde]

If you want to do an interesting and worthwhile mentally disabled person, you'd need to focus less on them and more on the challenges, tragedies, and harsh situations they constantly face. You could also do a Flowers for Algernon-type scenario with, say, a deteriorating Templar or Grey Warden who knows what is coming but can't do anything to stop it. Actually, the story of a Templar who had the care of a friend who sank into total senility and is now facing the same fate might be really affecting and meaningful for people who've had to deal with Alzheimer's or similar condition in a family member.

[jillabender]

AmstradHero, I tend to agree with you about the difficulties of portraying a character with severely impaired verbal ability, in that the things that would make him or her feel like a complex individual would be very difficult to get across in a game.

What makes me uncomfortable about what Sejborg has suggested is the power imbalance involved in the idea of expressing, as non-disabled people, that we want to see a character who would present as someone we would describe as disabled, simply because we think it would be interesting from the point of view of game mechanics.

My main concern isn't that the character would be offensive as such - my main concern is that mentally disabled people in our society unfortunately don't have much power or influence over how they're portrayed in media. That imbalance of power is why I think it's important to take care to be as accurate and respectful as possible in portraying a disabled character, or even a character in a fantasy setting who presents as someone we would describe as disabled.

At this point, I would say that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the inclusion of a character similar to what Sejborg is suggesting if disabled people were included in the writing process. I would think that one way of addressing the power imbalance I described above could be to involve autistic people who were non-verbal as children in writing for the character.

Modifié par jillabender, 28 avril 2013 - 04:50 .

[Firky]

Consultation is always good, IMO. There are organisations like Able Gamers who visit developers, too, for accessibility to controls etc. I assume they consult on matters of sensitivity, too.

I've noticed some commentary recently about whether it's cool how much mainstream film/TV use non-disabled actors playing disabled people - and same for roles that involve things like depression/bipolar etc. (There are heaps of examples.)

I also recall a game developer raising whether DA's female identifying transgender characters were played by a transgender actor or a male actor. I had a quick look and figured she was probably voiced by a male voice actor as part of all the littler roles that aren't actually individually named. (But I just assumed that.)

I think games are moving in the right direction in terms of representation. There are more and more diverse individuals becoming developers, too, thankfully.

(PS. I'm really interested in the mechanics and the representation issues. This thread hit an area of interest.)

Modifié par Firky, 28 avril 2013 - 06:03 .

[Fredward]

Sejborg wrote...
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. 

YES! Congrats! It is! Progress. You get a self awareness star.

But yeah basically you just reiterated what I have an issue with. IF someone with a mental disability is represented in the game it would cost at least as much as a regular companion to represent them fairly (VA, animation [I'm assuming he/she would have some unique animations to express themself] personal quest, branching interaction etc.). If they don't we have to deal with a shallow, depthless being bereft of any function other than being "interesting," which you might not have a problem with, but some do.

So basically you're initial premise of "Cheap, more interesting half-wit companion" is either stupid and contradictory or offensive. Pick one.

Oh, and before I forget (again) Hodor is fine in his role. Which is as Bran's ambulatory plot device. He is not meant to present anything more (which may or may not be wrong, different discussion) but the companions in Bioware games are famed for their depth and interaction (no snickering pls) and taking that away from one of them for the sake of interesting novelty is wrong. Also what Bran does to Hodor in the later books is disgusting and wrong on so many levels that I don't even know where to begin. But that's neither here nor there.

[AmstradHero]

jillabender: I wholeheartedly agree that portrayal is an issue. I'd also consider that it would be the duty of the writers to make sure they did appropriate consultation and checking to make sure that they were writing characters appropriately. I consider that to be part of the job. I agree that it must be done right, but again, I'm still not sure of any great benefit from a resourcing perspective, which appeared to be Sejborg's main argument for it.

Firky: The concept of using such a character to facilitate the protagonist delivering information to the player is definitely a useful tool in terms of delivering lore/setting information, and one I'd not considered. Trying to get the player's character to deliver more information to the player rather than being forced to ask other characters is certainly something I'd like to see more of, as far too frequently, the player character must be told things that they should know as a real person in order to educate the player.

There are still potentially some issues in terms of the tone of the delivery, but that's consistent with any non-chosen dialogue for a player's character, so it's not an insurmountable problem. I still imagine that this kind of thing could be done with as part of a two-sided exchange; in this case the information is still delivered, but the player might get to choose the tone of the delivery?

It's an interesting discussion from a roleplaying perspective, but I'm curious whether the role is sufficiently powerful/meaningful in the context of a four person party that would warrant the player character deciding to initiate that conversation rather than with one of the other party members?

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 avril 2013 - 11:53 .

[Mercedes-Benz]

No thanks, Alistair was enough.

[Sejborg]

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

Just to be sure, this character shouldn't just be an exact copy of Hodor - that would be lame. Bioware should come up with their own half-wit, but for sake of conversation we are using Hodor as an example.


If Hodor was a POV character, then I imagine his inner dialogue wouldn't just be "hodoring". Hodor is just the word that comes out of his mouth irregardless of what he intends to say. There can be lots of interesting stuff going on in his head - or it could be incredibly boring. That is up to the writer to decide.

Now I do understand that you don't find Hodor sufficiently interesting, but I like the character none the less. I don't really agree with your litmus test, but I hope you realise that your litmus test would also "kill off" the dog as a companion.

Here is why I don't agree with your litmus test. If you look at Telltales The Walking Dead; one of the things they did was including some extreme (but still believable) characters for the PC and other characters to be in opposition of and thereby be an effective way to define other characters. Extreme characters like Ben (he's a Coward with a capital "C" and he is pretty much there just to throw wrenches in the work) and Larry (he's hateful and there to hate the PC no matter what). Characters like these are great to not only define the PC but also other characters around them.

A half-wit such as Hodor in a DA game as a companion would give an easy and effective way for the PC and other companions to quickly define themselves. Perhaps one companion likes to tease the half-wit while another defends him. Perhaps the half-wit likes to stay near the bard because she tells him stories or whatever. This is just what my lame imagination can come up with of easy ways of effectively use the half-wit to define characters. Instead of walking up to Leliana and demand she tells you a story, you could walk up to them, and Leliana could say she was just about to tell a story to "the Hodor character". Then you could suggest something and Hodor would react in agreement if it isn't one you have already heard. If you decide upon an already heard story Hodor could just run off to do something else or grumple and stay or whatever. Perhaps he likes a specific story and want to hear it all the time. Whatever. 

It is up to the writer to decide what personality serves the best purpose.

AmstradHero wrote...

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.

They should obviously record the Hodor variations they need. I imagine one voice actor could take on more than just the half-wit. 

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

I don't really want anyone to be a walking translator for his "hodoring". I want the players to figure out themselves what different variations of "Hodoring" could mean. Firky gave an example of how it could be done, but I would rather not have the PC "autodialogue-ing", so I would prefer if it was a companion that was switched with Hawke in Firku's example. Or perhaps Firky meant for there to be dialogue options for the pc?

I want the "hodoring" to speak for it self, and if the player is unable to get any meaning whatsoever out of it, then the PC shouldn't just blurt out an autodialogue translation. Because as you said AmstradHero, that would break immersion. Here is how I imagine it could be done.

The party of heroes is walking through a city and outside of a tavern Hodor reacts:

Hodor: "Hodor..."
PC dialogue options
1 - Not now Hodor.
2 - What's this Hodor? You want to go inside?
3 - Yes. Let's go inside. 

- Option 2 is selected

Hodor: "Hodoor!"
PC dialogue options
1 - Well I guess we could all use a bit of rest
2 - No Hodor. We have things to do.
3 - One "Hodor" means you want to go inside. Two "Hodor's" means you don't.

- Option 3 is selected

Hodor: "Hodor, Hodor."
PC dialogue options
1 - All right. No it is.
2 - You don't like taverns? Interesting 
3 - Double yes! Let's go inside. 

I think his interactions should mostly be in reaction to the world he is in, and therefore you would primarily get to talk interact with him if you bring him along on quests (sorta like Sten). I think conversations where you walk up to him in camp and talk about his troublesome past and his abusive farther (or whatever) and you have to guess your way through a conversation of "hodoring", wouldn't work in a video game. Cutting that away would also help keep the cost down.

When in camp I imagine that this character would mostly just be interacting with the other companions. Perhaps he is training his sword skills with another companion, or staying near the bard as suggested earlier. Point is; there are other ways to define a character than through lengthy conversations with the PC and exposition of their background. I might think the reason why some don't like my proposal is because lengthy conversations have always been the thing Bioware does and been good at. This character I propose would clearly be defined in a different way than what we are used to in Bioware games. 

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

But you would still have other characters you can have normal typical conversations with. I believe this character will just add a new layer of variety to the typical band of Bioware companions. And I believe the writers can use him as an effective tool, for quickly defining something about other characters. Nothing is really known about the game at this point, but I recall one rumour from the german survey that said there would be 10 companions. Now while this is only a rumour, I think it puts my proposal in another perspective, because you would have plenty other companions to have your typical interactions with. 

jillabender wrote...
At this point, I would say that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the inclusion of a character similar to what Sejborg is suggesting if disabled people were included in the writing process. I would think that one way of addressing the power imbalance I described above could be to involve autistic people who were non-verbal as children in writing for the character.

Now I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the disabled being included in the writing process. However I think it is a given that professional writers with respect for themselves (and I see Bioware's writers as such) research the subject they are writing about. So one way or another they would have to gain knowledge about the subject.

[hujsh23]

It could also be like the monster in Young Frankenstein. Can't really speak but can dance and and show some emotional reaction. If it was a player created monster that you could put together, choosing different appearances or abilities, that would be really cool

[Vidpci]

We could just put a few developers in the game as companions. That would be about on par.

[AmstradHero]

Mercedes-Benz wrote...
No thanks, Alistair was enough.

We've also got the horde of hilarious people who decided to make this joke. I'd rather get rid of them first.

Vidpci wrote...
We could just put a few developers in the game as companions. That would be about on par.

Really? Do you even have any idea how to develop a game? If you do, or you've attempted it, or perhaps even released it, then maybe you can make a comment like this. Otherwise, you're simply being ignorant and/or a troll.

[AmstradHero]

Sejborg wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
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.

Just to be sure, this character shouldn't just be an exact copy of Hodor - that would be lame. Bioware should come up with their own half-wit, but for sake of conversation we are using Hodor as an example.

Yes, I was taking that as a given.

Sejborg wrote...
Now I do understand that you don't find Hodor sufficiently interesting, but I like the character none the less. I don't really agree with your litmus test, but I hope you realise that your litmus test would also "kill off" the dog as a companion.

Yes, I do, and I have no qualms about that. In my first playthrough of DAO, when I had a choice, I chose to take dog zero times. The same in my second playthrough. In my third playthrough I think I tried it once or twice. Dog simply isn't anywhere near as interesting as any of the other characters.

Sejborg wrote...
Here is why I don't agree with your litmus test. If you look at Telltales The Walking Dead; one of the things they did was including some extreme (but still believable) characters for the PC and other characters to be in opposition of and thereby be an effective way to define other characters. Extreme characters like Ben (he's a Coward with a capital "C" and he is pretty much there just to throw wrenches in the work) and Larry (he's hateful and there to hate the PC no matter what). Characters like these are great to not only define the PC but also other characters around them.

Extreme characters can be amazingly interesting. You could easily write stories with those characters that would be interesting - even if some of that would come through presenting the world from the point of an unreliable narrator. They have a personality and they have reasons for why they behave that way. An extreme Hodor could struggle with this. An individual that struggles to communicate but fulfils this requirement would not.

Again, the utility of the Hodor is being espoused to enable other characters to demonstrate their personality or the setting of the world. Why waste resources on creating a character whose only purpose is to provide characterisation for others or provide information without bland exposition. From a design perspective, I simply don't see the benefit. I'd rather spend my time creating a character that has some real depth. Hodoring doesn't deliver sufficient characterisation for me to want to adventure with a character. Sure, they can come along for the adventure, but they'll be staying in the party camp (or equivalent) all the time.

Sejborg wrote...
They should obviously record the Hodor variations they need. I imagine one voice actor could take on more than just the half-wit. 

Yes, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they still have to pay the voice actor to record those lines. And pay the voice actors who interact with those lines. And pay the people who integrate and animate those lines within the game. It really doesn't provide the massive time/monetary savings you're envisioning. As someone who has spent many, many hours recently integrating voice lines into my DAO mod, the recording of lines is only a fraction of the work involved. Don't argue for this kind of character from a resourcing perspective, because you're really not going to be saving much time/money in development. Trust me on this one.

Sejborg wrote...
I don't really want anyone to be a walking translator for his "hodoring". I want the players to figure out themselves what different variations of "Hodoring" could mean. Firky gave an example of how it could be done, but I would rather not have the PC "autodialogue-ing", so I would prefer if it was a companion that was switched with Hawke in Firku's example. Or perhaps Firky meant for there to be dialogue options for the pc?

I think his interactions should mostly be in reaction to the world he is in, and therefore you would primarily get to talk interact with him if you bring him along on quests (sorta like Sten). I think conversations where you walk up to him in camp and talk about his troublesome past and his abusive farther (or whatever) and you have to guess your way through a conversation of "hodoring", wouldn't work in a video game. Cutting that away would also help keep the cost down.

Yes, but why can't we just do this with a regular companion and fulfil exactly the same need? If the designers need to get that information across, then they either have to force that companion into the party, or they have to make up redundant means of getting it across if they aren't.

Sejborg wrote...
Point is; there are other ways to define a character than through lengthy conversations with the PC and exposition of their background. 

Lengthy conversations? Obviously you never talked to Sten.

Sejborg wrote...
When in camp I imagine that this character would mostly just be interacting with the other companions. Perhaps he is training his sword skills with another companion, or staying near the bard as suggested earlier.
...
I might think the reason why some don't like my proposal is because lengthy conversations have always been the thing Bioware does and been good at. This character I propose would clearly be defined in a different way than what we are used to in Bioware games. 
...
I believe this character will just add a new layer of variety to the typical band of Bioware companions. And I believe the writers can use him as an effective tool, for quickly defining something about other characters.

Now I see you going somewhere interesting from a mechanics and storytelling perspective. Going up to one party member and interrupting their conversation in order to learn something about one (or both) of them is a nice way to jazz up the standard exposition/tell me about yourself routine, but again, this is something that could be done through any party NPC. You don't need a Hodor to do this.

I do believe that adding variety into the companions is a valuable thing, but having one that is primarily a tool for defining other characters isn't something I necessarily see as entirely beneficial. If a character's only purpose is to aid exposition or characterisation of others, then that character has poor characterisation.

The chief reason to push it would be from the perspective of having variety in the party NPCs. I think the thing that really needs to be explored is how it would be possible to create unique and fresh scenarios that couldn't just as easily be played out with a character that has more conversational and characterisation depth than a Hodor.

Modifié par AmstradHero, 28 avril 2013 - 03:05 .

[jillabender]

Sejborg wrote...

jillabender wrote...
At this point, I would say that I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to the inclusion of a character similar to what Sejborg is suggesting if disabled people were included in the writing process. I would think that one way of addressing the power imbalance I described above could be to involve autistic people who were non-verbal as children in writing for the character.

Now I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the disabled being included in the writing process. However I think it is a given that professional writers with respect for themselves (and I see Bioware's writers as such) research the subject they are writing about. So one way or another they would have to gain knowledge about the subject.

Yes, what I meant was that I would hope that the writers would consult with disabled people to get their feedback when writing the kind of character you're suggesting. I think that disabled people in general would be in a position to notice and point out things that non-disabled people might miss. There are people (I'm thinking particularly of people with autism spectrum disorders) who had severe verbal or language difficulties in childhood but developed normal language skills later in life, and I would think those people would be the ideal people to consult about the kind of character you're suggesting. 

Firky wrote...

Consultation is always good, IMO. There are organisations like Able Gamers who visit developers, too, for
accessibility to controls etc. I assume they consult on matters of sensitivity, too.

Thanks Firky, that sounds like a really cool organization!

Modifié par jillabender, 28 avril 2013 - 11:37 .

[Firky]

AmstradHero wrote...

Yes, I do, and I have no qualms about that. In my first playthrough of DAO, when I had a choice, I chose to take dog zero times. The same in my second playthrough. In my third playthrough I think I tried it once or twice. Dog simply isn't anywhere near as interesting as any of the other characters.

I took Dog along because I was waiting for him to have discrete content. Like Sherry the Mouse in Ultima V and how she was the only one that could go through mouse holes and find secret little areas. Even just a couple of Dog-only areas would have been cool. But there weren't any.

The question about whether a story from the POV of a mute character would be interesting reminds me of So Much to Tell You, by John Marsden. (That book all Aussie 90s teens had to read for English, right?) It's about a girl who is traumatised and selectively mute. She is transferred from hospital to a girls' boarding school and keeps a diary.

I think some of the interest is in how the other girls react to her and her silence, but she has really complex stuff going on in her head, too.

Personally, although the character in So Much to Tell You, had a typical mind and was silent because of the trauma, I think it'd be just as interesting to read a story about what was going on inside a character with a differently organised mind, in one way or another. (But it's something I'm interested in.)

PS. And, now I'm remembering the book, I think she also found other ways of communicating, giving thoughtful gifts, being reliable etc. But her situation caused her heaps of confusion with friendships and such. It was a really interesting story.

Modifié par Firky, 29 avril 2013 - 02:46 .

[Plaintiff]

AmstradHero wrote...
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%.

You can count me in that 0.0001%. Dog's interactions with the other party members are some of my favourite moments in both DA games.

[Silfren]

Plaintiff wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
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%.

You can count me in that 0.0001%. Dog's interactions with the other party members are some of my favourite moments in both DA games.

You know, it's funny.  I never, ever spare Loghain in any of my Origins playthroughs, but the other day I found myself looking up Loghain's dialogue banters on Youtube, and I find his dialogue with Dog to be some of the most endearing. 

[Silfren]

Sejborg wrote...

How about a companion like Hodor (from ASOIAF) or that enchantment dude. A character that don't need much writing because all they do is say the same word again and again. I believe a character like that is low cost but they are nice to have none the less, just so there is more options as for the companions you bring along. Sorta like the dog but just a half-wit.

I think it would be interesting. What do you think?

Since we already have Sandal in the game, I don't see why we would need another one.  I also don't think this would work as a companion at all.  What would be the point, really? 

[Silfren]

Sejborg wrote...

Alistair isn't stupid enough. I'm talking about someone as dumb as Hodor or Sandal. Alistair could speak in sentences.

....And this right here is a good reason why including such a character carries too much potential for offensive/problematic content. 

Sandal is not stupid, and he is quite capable of speaking in sentences.  He simply chooses not to most of the time. 

[HurricaneGinger]

Sandal can obviously take care of himself and he is contributing to the story one way or another.

But if you are suggesting a half-wit companion that can wield a weapon or two but stumbles over himself as he tries to accomplish a complicated move and blurts out the plan to enemies...I'd never take him anywhere. He'd remain in camp or at this castle we are apparently getting. Maker forbid if he's a mage!

If he contributes something to the plot, I MIGHT be able to stand him. But as I said, he wouldn't leave the castle. It would save my sanity...which is why Alistair has barely seen battle in my PTs.

[Silfren]

Foshizzlin wrote...

discosuperfly wrote...

We already had Alistair.

I literally was about to use these exact words.

And you'd be about the forthieth person to do so.  The joke is old, but people keep posting it as if their cleverness is original.  <_<

Modifié par Silfren, 29 avril 2013 - 06:04 .

[Sejborg]

AmstradHero wrote...

Yes, I do, and I have no qualms about that. In my first playthrough of DAO, when I had a choice, I chose to take dog zero times. The same in my second playthrough. In my third playthrough I think I tried it once or twice. Dog simply isn't anywhere near as interesting as any of the other characters.

Then it seems to me that we feel similar about the dog. I find that Bioware is almost wasting their ressourcers on that character. Sure I like options when it comes to what companions I can bring along. But choosing between the dog and any of the other companions is pretty much like choosing between a nice meal or watching paint dry. So I don't really think the dog counts for a choice. And that is why I want Bioware to try something else with those ressources.

AmstradHero wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
They should obviously record the Hodor variations they need. I imagine one voice actor could take on more than just the half-wit. 

Yes, but that doesn't diminish the fact that they still have to pay the voice actor to record those lines. And pay the voice actors who interact with those lines. And pay the people who integrate and animate those lines within the game. It really doesn't provide the massive time/monetary savings you're envisioning. As someone who has spent many, many hours recently integrating voice lines into my DAO mod, the recording of lines is only a fraction of the work involved. Don't argue for this kind of character from a resourcing perspective, because you're really not going to be saving much time/money in development. Trust me on this one.

I'm sorry but you act as if you have a locked line between investment and output. I don't see it like that. 

You already have most of those ressources you ask for by scrapping the dog. Voice actors and animators were already paid to include the dog. Here are some QA's to express in a simple way how I see the "business case" for my suggested character.

Would this Hodor character be more expensive to include than the dog? Maybe.
Would it be way more expensive than the dog? Doubtful.
Would the half-wit be a better character (more popular) than the dog? Most likely.
Would a better character result in more sold copies and therefore make the character worth the investment? Maybe.

AmstradHero wrote...
Yes, but why can't we just do this with a regular companion and fulfil exactly the same need? If the designers need to get that information across, then they either have to force that companion into the party, or they have to make up redundant means of getting it across if they aren't. 

Yes. You could just use a regular companion to serve the same purpose. But I think variety adds alot to the gaming experience and the setting. 

I prefer the companions to be optional. So if I were to decide how the game were to be pieced together, then you would have to bring the half-wit along if you didn't want to miss out on his interactions. This would be similar to Sten. If you didn't bring him along then you would miss out on quite a bit of his interactions. 

AmstradHero wrote...

Sejborg wrote...
When in camp I imagine that this character would mostly just be interacting with the other companions. Perhaps he is training his sword skills with another companion, or staying near the bard as suggested earlier.
...
I might think the reason why some don't like my proposal is because lengthy conversations have always been the thing Bioware does and been good at. This character I propose would clearly be defined in a different way than what we are used to in Bioware games. 
...
I believe this character will just add a new layer of variety to the typical band of Bioware companions. And I believe the writers can use him as an effective tool, for quickly defining something about other characters.

Now I see you going somewhere interesting from a mechanics and storytelling perspective. Going up to one party member and interrupting their conversation in order to learn something about one (or both) of them is a nice way to jazz up the standard exposition/tell me about yourself routine, but again, this is something that could be done through any party NPC. You don't need a Hodor to do this.

I do believe that adding variety into the companions is a valuable thing, but having one that is primarily a tool for defining other characters isn't something I necessarily see as entirely beneficial. If a character's only purpose is to aid exposition or characterisation of others, then that character has poor characterisation.

It don't neccesarily have to lead to the conclusion that the character has poor characterization. If properly done then the interaction between the Hodor and the companions will reveal something about both the compnaions and Hodor. Not just the companions. 

AmstradHero wrote...
The chief reason to push it would be from the perspective of having variety in the party NPCs. I think the thing that really needs to be explored is how it would be possible to create unique and fresh scenarios that couldn't just as easily be played out with a character that has more conversational and characterisation depth than a Hodor.

If I was the director on DA3 then I would tell my team that they had to include a character such as Hodor. That would force them to think differently when going about making interactions with NPC's and companions. Lately other gaming companies have been challenging Biowares positions as the company who make the best characters. Sure they are still among the best, but Telltales The Walking Dead is one example of a game where characters come more to life than in Bioware games. Quantic Dreams seems to be doing an interesting job with Beyond: Two Souls (there is a 35 min video out there if anyone is interested) and I hear that Bioshock: Infinite did a really good job in that department as well. 

I don't know if people are familiar with dogme95. But in short Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg came up with 10 rules for filmmaking - or rather more like 10 limitations. These limitations forced the directors out of their comfort zones and therefore forced them to think differently when working on their films. Bioware needs to leave their comfort zone and think out of the box about how they present their characters. And forcing them to include a character like Hodor would force them out of their comfort zone and make their imagination run wild. "How can we make this character work without him being able to speak in sentences?" I find a shake up is very much needed. It would be a healthy learning process. A typical companion would not force them out of their comfort zone. They would easily fall back to what they know, and are familiar with.

jillabender wrote...
Yes, what I meant was that I would hope that the writers would consult with disabled people to get their feedback when writing the kind of character you're suggesting. I think that disabled people in general would be in a position to notice and point out things that non-disabled people might miss. There are people (I'm thinking particularly of people with autism spectrum disorders) who had severe verbal or language difficulties in childhood but developed normal language skills later in life, and I would think those people would be the ideal people to consult about the kind of character you're suggesting. 

Yes. I can see how that could be benificial. 

Modifié par Sejborg, 29 avril 2013 - 02:28 .

[Renmiri1]

OP you are being offensive and insensitive, or clueless, or both.

As for your request, Cole, the mysterious mage tower prisoner introduced in Asunder, is pretty much it. Almost no dialog, as clueless, child like innocence. Yet even Cole hidden depths.

[Sejborg]

Renmiri1 wrote...

OP you are being offensive and insensitive, or clueless, or both.

Yes, yes. I get a lot of that. I have even received hate mail because of this thread. 

Renmiri1 wrote...
As for your request, Cole, the mysterious mage tower prisoner introduced in Asunder, is pretty much it. Almost no dialog, as clueless, child like innocence. Yet even Cole hidden depths.

I only read the first chapter of Asunder and it wasn't really for me. So I don't really know much about this Cole character.

But if you would indulge me for a moment:

Do you think this Cole character (or someone similar) could work as a companion in DA3?

Would his interactions need to be different from typical companions in order to make him "come alive" as a character?

Would Cole be an offensive character?

[AmstradHero]

Sejborg wrote...

AmstradHero wrote...
It really doesn't provide the massive time/monetary savings you're envisioning.
...
As someone who has spent many, many hours recently integrating voice lines into my DAO mod, the recording of lines is only a fraction of the work involved. Don't argue for this kind of character from a resourcing perspective, because you're really not going to be saving much time/money in development. Trust me on this one.

I'm sorry but you act as if you have a locked line between investment and output. I don't see it like that. 

You already have most of those ressources you ask for by scrapping the dog. Voice actors and animators were already paid to include the dog. Here are some QA's to express in a simple way how I see the "business case" for my suggested character.

Would this Hodor character be more expensive to include than the dog? Maybe.
Would it be way more expensive than the dog? Doubtful.
Would the half-wit be a better character (more popular) than the dog? Most likely.
Would a better character result in more sold copies and therefore make the character worth the investment? Maybe.

Okay, that's more reasonable. From your previous posts, it seemed you were suggesting "hey, we would save a massive amount of time and money by including a half-wit character". You don't. You save some, but it's not a massive saving. It is not, and should never be, a core argument for a character. I don't believe there's a locked line between time input and output - if I did, I wouldn't advocate so many "flavour" things that most players ignore. It's more than your posts were suggesting big savings from having this kind of character, which simply isn't the case. Not sure I agree that your questions really follow on logically from each other, but that's another discussion entirely.

Dog, for example, required a lot more work from animators because finishing the dialogue couldn't just rely on the two standing characters default stage. While you won't have this problem with a Hodor, extra work may be required on facial expressions or animation to help convey the meaning of a sentence above and beyond the simplistic Hodoring - if there's reduced variation in dialogue, then the character could easily seem emotionally disfunctional if something like this isn't done. Dog got "happy bark", "sad bark", "curious bark" subtitles - it would be incredibly condescending and insulting to use "happy hodor", "sad hodor", "curious hodor" subtitles, meaning this needs to be conveyed another way. These are the things you really have to think about in order to effectively and tastefully convey this character. It's really not as easy as "just make the NPC Hodor and you're done."

Sejborg wrote...
It don't neccesarily have to lead to the conclusion that the character has poor characterization. If properly done then the interaction between the Hodor and the companions will reveal something about both the compnaions and Hodor. Not just the companions. 

Yeah, I thought of editing my original post to change that. Saying they have poor characterisation wasn't necessarily accurate, because even a one-dimensional character can have good characterisation. The greater issue is from a mechanics and interaction perspective, it would be very hard to give the character depth. Just like dog is pretty shallow as a character.

Sejborg wrote...
If I was the director on DA3 then I would tell my team that they had to include a character such as Hodor.

No. NO. NO. I could not disagree with this strongly enough. Next you'll be declaring "the game must have multiplayer" and "the game must have microtransactions." EVERY decision should be made in support of the game rather than an arbitrary "we must have feature X". If this character is going to exist, then it must be discussed why this character will be valuable, how they will add to the story and the party and the player's experience. Arbitrarily declaring "X WILL BE IN THIS GAME" is one of the worst things for cohorent and well designed games.

I understand you're saying it should be done from a benevolent "it will make the writers think differently" perspective, but they're the writers. It's their full time job to write. As a director, sure, you can offer up ideas and suggestions and talk through options - but if you start directing and micromanaging them... that's when you get a Brendan McNamara fiasco or a Mass Effect 3 ending. I would never advocate or support this approach.