516 réponses à ce sujet

[RINNZ]

Can't we all just get along and agree to disagree instead of taking petty shots at one another? Like holy ****.

[Terodil]

Just had an idea while walking the dog that I wanted to throw in here to illustrate my preference:

If we draw up a scale to describe the room a medium leaves to its consumer's imagination/fantasy, a book would probably be quite far on the right (a lot of room for fantasy), a movie pretty far to the left (little room left to the imagination). Video games with their interactivity hold a spot somewhere in the middle, traditionally RPGs would be placed further to the right than action games which would be placed more to the left. Customisations simply move the spot a little further to the right. They empower the consumer.

Maybe my preference for customisations simply mirrors my significant preference for books over movies. *shrugs* I like using my brain.

[XMissWooX]

Yep I like DAI's approach most. It's kinda between DAO and DA2, nice compromise that makes characters always have unique style that fits their personality and origin and makes whole character design whole.

Agreed.
I've always felt that (partially due to the graphics limitations) characters in previous Dragon Age games have all followed a certain style.
DAI is actually the first time (with the possible exception of Fenris, who I felt had a pretty unique look) where I looked at the companion lineup and thought 'wow, these guys not only sound but also look really interesting'.

[AlanC9]

So, if I found that the behaviour, voice, name, ... of an NPC evoked certain pictures in my mind -- which they almost always do, whether you're aware of it or not --, I might find these pictures more appropriate to the NPC's character than the design the game developer opted for; both are fiction, both are based on individual context (since the same process happened with the developers), and none is any more valid, strictly speaking, than the other. The only difference is that the developer actually got to put his/her image of the character into the game and I didn't (unless I use a mod).

I don't quite follow the mechanism here. When would you form pictures in your mind for someone that you can already see? Do you do this for people in RL? If not, why not?

This reminds me of a Seinfeld gag. Kramer can't remember that George's fiancee is named "Susan" because he thinks she looks like she ought to be named "Lily." She dies without Kramer ever getting this right.

Could I like a look despite her character? Quite probably, as long as it was just about liking the look, not the NPC (see above). I don't know if that look would still reflect her personality. *shrugs*

You do realize that you're shrugging at the crux of the issue, right?
 

If the character was directly mirrored in the looks of a person, we wouldn't need a judicial system, for starters. Character and looks are not as closely connected as you make it seem. Hair colour, for example, is hardly linked with any character trait. Neither is the shape of the nose. The only few things remotely linked are those that the character can actually influence, such as make-up or the lack thereof.

What does this have to do with fictional characters?

[AlanC9]

Just had an idea while walking the dog that I wanted to throw If we draw up a scale to describe the room a medium leaves to its consumer's imagination/fantasy, a book would probably be quite far on the right (a lot of room for fantasy), a movie pretty far to the left (little room left to the imagination). Video games with their interactivity hold a spot somewhere in the middle, traditionally RPGs would be placed further to the right than action games which would be placed more to the left. Customisations simply move the spot a little further to the right. They empower the consumer.

Having freedom in some areas doesn't imply that you should have freedom in other areas. I don't want any freedoms in an RPG that my PC wouldn't have.

 

Maybe my preference for customisations simply mirrors my significant preference for books over movies. *shrugs* I like using my brain.

Oh, please. You can still use your brain in a video game with designed characters. But now you get to use it for interpretation rather than invention.

Edit: FWIW, disputes on Legolas' hair color are a thing. Dark hair would be far more common, but since Thranduil's hair is canonically blonde...

[Hazegurl]

No, though it would be hard work to do that for all characters since I did use sometime and face references of my DA2 Hawke. What I didn't like is that Bioware didn't keep his peaceful personality and didn't take accord that he's blood mage himself.

So in the end, it would be difficult for you, not Bioware.

 

I think it sucks that none of Hawke's personalities were well represented, but he was BW's Hawke in DAI, not ours.

[Hazegurl]

I'm not sure customising companion's appearances would be a good idea. It seems like it would invalidate the whole "we design our characters to match their personalities" tactic Bioware worked so hard on in DAI (see https://themillionth...dra-pentaghast/).

Cassandra has a practical, no-nonsense look which matches her personality, Sera has a fun, mis-matched look which matches her personality, Dorian has a stylish, flashy look which matches his personality, etc.

Being able to alter companion's outfits to a degree was cool, but I don't see how you could give complete customisation to them without losing that unique tailored design.

I agree, The reason why our companions look so unique is because they weren't created in the CC.  If we had to run all the companions through, then they'll all end up with the same crappy hairstyles et al.  That would suck. 

 

If I were to be honest, I actually liked DA2 approach to allowing the companions to dress themselves however they wanted with the player only buying upgrades for them.  The only issue is that they never changed their freaking clothes in like ten years lol!  But if the companions changed their own armor styles, perhaps based on story acts and time lapses, that would have been nice. 

[Terodil]

I don't quite follow the mechanism here. When would you form pictures in your mind for someone that you can already see? Do you do this for people in RL? If not, why not?

I do, for NPCs, though I do it less the longer I spend with that particular NPC. I'll admit I have a vivid imagination. In RL? No. Such fantasies simply have no place there.
 

You do realize that you're shrugging at the crux of the issue, right?

TBH the question is phrased badly, it's too broad. Yes, I could imagine such a look that I would find aesthetically pleasing and that would still match her character in my view. The last proviso has great significance, though: since the assessment 'fits the character' is a subjective statement once again based on our particular perceptions and associations, what I consider character-appropriate might not be such for you.
 

What does this have to do with fictional characters?

It refutes the claim that looks is an integral part of an NPC's character, and the implication that changing visual details would necessarily invalidate the character.
 

Having freedom in some areas doesn't imply that you should have freedom in other areas. I don't want any freedoms in an RPG that my PC wouldn't have.

Oh come on, this doesn't make sense. Everybody who reads a book, everybody who watches a movie, everybody who plays a game exercises freedoms 'their' characters don't have, all the time. Be it the more complex case of interpreting the story on the basis of informational background the player possesses, but that his/her protagonist doesn't, or be it the simpler case of hitting the pause button and making a cuppa while the PC is disarming a bomb that goes off in 3s game-time. Hell, by that rule you shouldn't save the game or shut it down... ever.

[Monster20862]

I can be a villainous Inquisitor? I wish! That's probably my top-1 gripe about DA:I, the INability to build an evil, iron-fisted inquisition, ideally one that rules by fear and that uses the orb -- instead of destroying it -- to its own ends.

(I know I said I wouldn't get into this any more but... yes, a lot of characters have dark aspects to them, e.g. Leliana as the spymistress. But at least she's up-front about it, not like certain others that try to dress everything they do in a pretty, maker-fearing, whitewashed, bigoted blanket or deride others for actually thinking first and acting second (chasing dog-tails etc.). Also, Cassandra had better got a good reason to assume that fighting through a small army of ancient elf guards takes less time, and therefore demands less victims, than simply paying respects to a statue! Maybe thinking once in a while isn't such a bad idea after all.)

To me, all religious people are villains. My major gripe about this game is that the chantry survives no matter what your decisions are.

[AlanC9]

I do, for NPCs, though I do it less the longer I spend with that particular NPC. I'll admit I have a vivid imagination. In RL? No. Such fantasies simply have no place there.

You didn't really answer my question there, probably due to my own lack of precision. Why does this have a place anywhere? I can see making up an appearance for a character in a book who doesn't actually have an appearance. But for a character who already does? How does that make more sense than doing it for a RL person?

since the assessment 'fits the character' is a subjective statement once again based on our particular perceptions and associations, what I consider character-appropriate might not be such for you. It refutes the claim that looks is an integral part of an NPC's character, and the implication that changing visual details would necessarily invalidate the character.

All artistic interpretations are subjective, yep. But you're not doing an interpretation. You're redesigning something that the artist has designed.It's the same as rewriting a play or reshooting a movie with a new cast.

Oh come on, this doesn't make sense. Everybody who reads a book, everybody who watches a movie, everybody who plays a game exercises freedoms 'their' characters don't have, all the time. Be it the more complex case of interpreting the story on the basis of informational background the player possesses, but that his/her protagonist doesn't, or be it the simpler case of hitting the pause button and making a cuppa while the PC is disarming a bomb that goes off in 3s game-time. Hell, by that rule you shouldn't save the game or shut it down... ever.

Well, obviously, I don't see it that way.

As for your specifics, I'd prefer to not be able to interpret things with out-of-character information, yep. I've never liked the way Bio shows us scenes that the PC doesn't see. This was particularly egregious in a couple of places in DA:O, for instance. I put up with it as long as they don't show us anything that my PC could act on, but I'd rather they knocked it off. (Edit: Yes, I realize that this puts me at odds with Bio's cinematic ambitions. I see this as a mismatch between the conventions of the two media.) I don't see the issue with pausing except in combat -- I wouldn't pause in the middle of making a time-critical decision, so this doesn't come up. Combat pausing I tolerate as a limitation of the current control systems, though ideally we wouldn't have it or need it; I figure we should still want it the way an RL soldier would want it. Otherwise I don't see the issue, since pausing doesn't change anything.

[AlanC9]

To me, all religious people are villains. My major gripe about this game is that the chantry survives no matter what your decisions are.

Well, it's hard to imagine that happening so fast even if it's desirable.

[AresKeith]

To me, all religious people are villains. My major gripe about this game is that the chantry survives no matter what your decisions are.

 

   

[Monster20862]

Well, it's hard to imagine that happening so fast even if it's desirable.

It's hard not to imagine it happening considering that all the bad things that happened are a result of the chantry.

And it doesn't make sense to me that the PC can't be a candidate for divine, if that's what I want, considering that all of the mindless masses basically worship the ground I walk on. The hell with the chantry hierarchy, I'm an F ing demigod.

[Andrew Lucas]

Geez, it's never enough.

[AlanC9]

It's hard not to imagine it happening considering that all the bad things that happened are a result of the chantry.

I don't think religious faith works like that.

[TaHol]

Hello everyone. Let's try to stay civil and avoid personal disagreements. Thank you.

How are you going to live in this world and "avoid personal disagreements"? Dear mod, you might want to adjust your expectations in alignment with reality. Or stay inside as a hermit 24/7/12. Or shut this forum for good, if that is what is expected from people. The minute there is 2 people together there is personal disagreements. People who don't tolerate that are concidered having frieking awful personalities.

[Malthier]

The suggestion that a writer or designer should go out of their way to let us alter the appearance of their characters within the game for the sake of player whims is generally, yet deeply, ridiculous.

[Panda]

So in the end, it would be difficult for you, not Bioware.

 

I think it sucks that none of Hawke's personalities were well represented, but he was BW's Hawke in DAI, not ours.

 

I'd imagine that making character creator available for every companion would take some resources in terms of animation at least, but not sure how much.

 

I guess my point with Hawke is that although you could make his face, he still wasn't character that represented that face. He looked like my Hawke, but didn't have personality like him. So why not keep Cass, Cullen, Solas etc. fully BW's cause even if we design their looks, their personalitys most likely won't reflect our wishes?

 

Well, it's hard to imagine that happening so fast even if it's desirable.

 

It's quite annoying how everyone keeps calling you Herald of Andraste no matter how much you say you don't like it. Some friends these advisors and companions are..

[AlanC9]

I'd imagine that making character creator available for every companion would take some resources in terms of animation at least, but not sure how much.

I don't think this is actually true. My understanding is that the NPCs - humanoid ones, anyway - animate the same way as PCs do.

[Terodil]

You didn't really answer my question there, probably due to my own lack of precision. Why does this have a place anywhere? I can see making up an appearance for a character in a book who doesn't actually have an appearance. But for a character who already does? How does that make more sense than doing it for a RL person?

Uh. Are you trying to draw up a rulebook where and how you are allowed to use fantasy and where and how you aren't? I thought it pretty much universally agreed-upon that fictional worlds of any kind were supposed to invite fantasy, and were not to be taken literal with nothing but the bare information the author(s) provided. The human mind simply does not work that way, not to mention that interpretation itself often is an act of fantasy.

So if you don't have any ideas about what you'd think a fictional character should or could look like on the basis of how s/he acts, sounds, etc., that's fine -- I'm not going to tell you to start using your fantasy. Meanwhile, I'll feel free to enjoy the power of imagination here and there.

The difference with fantasy in RL is that since real people are involved, it can be dangerous -- either damaging the sanity of its user or his/her relationship with others. Walking up to a friend and telling him 'You know, I think you should dye your hair ginger, it would fit your character better' borders on the surreal. (Although the situation would be entirely different if he asked you for advice, of course.)
 

All artistic interpretations are subjective, yep. But you're not doing an interpretation. You're redesigning something that the artist has designed.It's the same as rewriting a play or reshooting a movie with a new cast.

Yes and no.

On a fundamental level: Why shouldn't I be allowed to voice an opinion such as 'I didn't like Leonardo DiCaprio as Hamlet, I think Robert Downey Jr. would have fit the role better'? It's still Hamlet, he's just played by another actor with a different look, and obviously a different interpretation. Where's the structural difference to games? Why would anybody ever reshoot a movie? Throw all the various 'Dracula' movies into the bin because it's already been done, any other version would be sacrilege?

(In fact, small correction: Making a movie with a new cast is indeed an interpretation. Who says it isn't?)

On a higher level: I have been mentioning KOTOR as an example of how it has been done before and how it could be done again. The artists have designed the options themselves. You get to pick one. By using the option the developers gave me, I'm hardly breaking artistic integrity, am I?

Re: Your preferences for games: Acknowledged, but I don't share them, I think a lot of other people won't share them, so I think asking for others to be precluded from having options you wouldn't use is... well... taking it a bit far. You can always choose not to use a specific option. Just as you choose not to pause at a critical moment.

[Octarin]

   

 

This and then some.     

 

[This thread is fast going the day of the dodo. There's bound to be a extreme religious comment incoming soon, and that's all she wrote.]

 

I've no idea why the expectation is that we are ALL pleased 100% by ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING, and if we're not, it's NEVER OUR OWN ISSUE, but the developers' fault. This is the epitome of narcissistic behaviour, the absolute entitlement to pleasure, where everyone should be bending over backwards to your will and whim. 

 

Personally I absolutely, completely and totally LOATHE Iron Bull. That character is a total affront to the Qunari as I have them in my head from DA:O and DA2 and every time I have to deal with him, I get a headache from nerves. Do you see me acting all entitled, demanding the devs change Iron Bull so he complies to my image of him? Get real, you narcs. No, seriously, GET REAL. Even sociopathy had its limits. 

[Seraphim24]

Look characters should be as awesome as humanly possible that's literally all there is to say to this topic.

[Panda]

Oh boy.

[AlanC9]

Uh. Are you trying to draw up a rulebook where and how you are allowed to use fantasy and where and how you aren't? I thought it pretty much universally agreed-upon that fictional worlds of any kind were supposed to invite fantasy, and were not to be taken literal with nothing but the bare information the author(s) provided. The human mind simply does not work that way, not to mention that interpretation itself often is an act of fantasy.

Rulebook? Gosh, no. I was simply asking about your process, which doesn't seem to be useful, even to you. How do you get through a movie if you're constantly recasting it in your head? I've got nothing much at stake here; like I said upthread, you're fighting the DA team's basic idea of the creative process, so the chance of this being adopted strikes me as essentially zero.

The difference with fantasy in RL is that since real people are involved, it can be dangerous -- either damaging the sanity of its user or his/her relationship with others. Walking up to a friend and telling him 'You know, I think you should dye your hair ginger, it would fit your character better' borders on the surreal. (Although the situation would be entirely different if he asked you for advice, of course.)

You mean you'd exercise fantasy in RL if these dangers didn't exist?

On a fundamental level: Why shouldn't I be allowed to voice an opinion such as 'I didn't like Leonardo DiCaprio as Hamlet, I think Robert Downey Jr. would have fit the role better'? It's still Hamlet, he's just played by another actor with a different look, and obviously a different interpretation.

Nobody said you weren't allowed to make that criticism. And if you want to shoot your own version, go ahead. It's called a "mod."

Re: Your preferences for games: Acknowledged, but I don't share them, I think a lot of other people won't share them, so I think asking for others to be precluded from having options you wouldn't use is... well... taking it a bit far. You can always choose not to use a specific option. Just as you choose not to pause at a critical moment.

My (hypothetical) problem here is that this requires Bio to either divert substantial resources into making lots of different equally appropriate looks for a character, or -- more likely -- do a slapdash job on all of them. Theoretically, they could do a proper one and then some slapdash ones, which would work for both of us, but that doesn't strike me as a plausible allocation of resources IRL.

[In Exile]

You didn't really answer my question there, probably due to my own lack of precision. Why does this have a place anywhere? I can see making up an appearance for a character in a book who doesn't actually have an appearance. But for a character who already does? How does that make more sense than doing it for a RL person?

 

To a degree I can somewhat understand this in one context: when the alleged description of the character (i.e., universally and blindly attractive) does not match up your subjective perception of the character (i.e., not attractive at all). We all have types, and sometimes the perception of the creator (or casting director) does not match up with our own subjective sense. In that regard, I can understand wanting to imagine a character consistent appearance. It's not what I would do, but I kind of get wanting to line up your subjective perception with what the story says it should be to modify your own experience. 

 

But I haven't read the thread and I'm just jumping in - I might well be missing something very important.