there is no hook in that whatsoever, in either the dialogue or the metatext. i just wouldn't send something that boring and anyone who does should feel bad.
just because a network tag has no metatext in it doesn't mean there's nothing to respond to or nothing to indicate tone. more often than not it's implied. consider a better example:
"Hmm, I don't know... What do you think we should do? Doesn't this seem risky? [he's looking directly into Susan's eyes, seeking comfort, shoulders slacking, vulnerable]"
and
"Hmm, I don't know... What do you think we should do? Doesn't this seem risky?" with a meaningful icon choice: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/a7/f2/f5a7f286dca7652e15cf413e5efe2702.png
they carry the same weight, there are plenty of cues in each
there was nothing 'metatext' about the example in the comment you were replying to
facial expressions, gestures, gaze are directly observable (could have taken out 'evasively' to be more show than tell, but whatever) on 'video' tags
also, have you ever actually done facetime/video chats? because trying to look 'directly into someone's eyes' doesn't tend to go well with those, you mostly look like someone trying to troll a security camera. also, if you're looking right into the camera lens you're likely partly missing the other person's expressions/responses too.
90% sure you're trolling but also sure there are other people who think like you do so no. this example is bad.
ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 06:35 am (UTC)(link)just because a network tag has no metatext in it doesn't mean there's nothing to respond to or nothing to indicate tone. more often than not it's implied. consider a better example:
"Hmm, I don't know... What do you think we should do? Doesn't this seem risky? [he's looking directly into Susan's eyes, seeking comfort, shoulders slacking, vulnerable]"
and
"Hmm, I don't know... What do you think we should do? Doesn't this seem risky?" with a meaningful icon choice: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f5/a7/f2/f5a7f286dca7652e15cf413e5efe2702.png
they carry the same weight, there are plenty of cues in each
da
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 12:32 pm (UTC)(link)And unless you have an icon for every nuance your character goes through in conversation, you're going to have to do description at some point.
Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 12:47 pm (UTC)(link)Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 03:22 pm (UTC)(link)i'm dying squirtle
Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 04:20 pm (UTC)(link)Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 04:23 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 05:07 pm (UTC)(link)facial expressions, gestures, gaze are directly observable (could have taken out 'evasively' to be more show than tell, but whatever) on 'video' tags
also, have you ever actually done facetime/video chats? because trying to look 'directly into someone's eyes' doesn't tend to go well with those, you mostly look like someone trying to troll a security camera. also, if you're looking right into the camera lens you're likely partly missing the other person's expressions/responses too.
90% sure you're trolling but also sure there are other people who think like you do so no. this example is bad.
no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 05:14 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 05:15 pm (UTC)(link)Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 05:59 pm (UTC)(link)no subject
(Anonymous) 2018-04-09 09:03 pm (UTC)(link)Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-10 03:22 am (UTC)(link)Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-10 06:23 pm (UTC)(link)jfc dwrp is full of uncreative babies
Re: ayrt
their example is so much better
Re: ayrt
(Anonymous) 2018-04-10 06:58 pm (UTC)(link)M E A N I N G F U L
icon choices