Over at the Iron Tower forum, there’s a co-op post by Vince Weller and Gareth Fouche on the matter of dialogue systems in RPGs.
Essentially, they’re looking at ways to make conversations in games more dynamic and natural. Perhaps even more interesting. The question is, though, do we really want this?
Back last year, in Can We Talk?, I noted that the majority of conversations in RPGs tend to be with helpless wretches wanting some little job done for them. Of course, there are also more important interactions with major NPCs, and the dialogue in those instances can be much more involved.
Supposing that the system posited by Vince/Gareth could be created and worked fairly well. It brings us to the question I asked in my previous post: “If we were able to “talk” to NPCs as we talk to each other, would we find that unbearable after awhile?”.
Right now, we’re used to the “click-through-menu” technique. It has the advantage of being fast, especially when replaying a game. With the new method, that wouldn’t work as well.
We’d have to think during those conversations. We’d have to consider responses much more carefully. We might find ourselves saving a lot before talking to anyone, just in case (more than we do now, I mean).
This is something about which I’m a bit torn. On the one hand, we’ve discussed how it’s relationships that drive stories, and dialogue is an important factor there.
On the other hand, how much talk is enough, and how much is too much? If every conversation were “life-like”, would that become a burden after awhile? Once the novelty wore off, would we start yearning for the “good old days” of click-click-click? How much thinking do we want to do for every dialogue?
Check out the post, and see what you think.
One thing I have thought of is having a lot of the back story and history described to you when you are journeying from place to place - a banter among the traveling companions in your party. It would have to be voice over since it would be hard to move and read at the same time. It might add to the realism, after all who would travel halfway across the country without exchanging a word with their companions?
Interactive dialogue is another thing. Most these days seem to be the canned responses that you pick from a list, though occasionally you might see the key word dialogue as well. I don’t see much of an alternative there, though someone may develop a parser that can handle the unexpected question.
I don’t know scorp, I think it’s a great idea though. It will make the game better but I see your point. When I’m playing the game for the 2nd time around, I usually click-click-click the general diaglogues too, except when its branching off to a different tree I’ve never tried. I usually play a game around 2 to 4 times depending on how many outcome the game has. So, in terms of a 1 run through game then that idea would be great but on replayability then maybe they could make a option for the player for an alternate dialogue type? or a skip option?.
/sniping mode on
oh yeah - i’d bet the ‘casual gamer’ would love an NPC interaction ala the old Zork type of adventures(updated of course).
/sniping mode off
some causal non idiotic background voice overs while traveling to and fro does sound like a nice addition if done in moderation.
Here’s the only dialog ever put in a A-V or digital format that matters: “I’m sorry Dave, I’m afraid I can’t let you do that.”
Xian, problem with voiceovers: what if you miss something? What if you’re hard of hearing or deaf? That has to be considered these days.
sturm, exactly. This idea has its good points, but one does have to consider replayability. Unless a game is a total dog, I usually play it quite a few times myself.
And think about that style of dialogue in FO3 with its 40K lines (I was waiting for someone to pick up on that, which is why I didn’t mention this in the post). That could be painful.
Ag, you got that right. But then Vince & Gareth weren’t thinking about the casual market.
Vag, just open the pod bay doors ;)
Well, consider it like this. Most here will have played Pen & Paper. Have you ever decided to ask an NPC a question? “Where is the barons keep?”, “What is the local stance on Elves?”, “Who here has a reputation as an honorable merchant?”, that kind of thing?
And what happened? The DM made some stuff up right? In fact, if he or she was good DM, they probably worked in some flavor. Spin in some fluff details, or drop a clue perhaps.
This doesn’t mean you have to talk to every peasant. Nor does it slow you down if you want to ignore anyone who isn’t “critical path”, generally. But, thanks to the infinite adaptability of the human mind, your DM can effectively create “content-lite” on the fly. A major conversation would probably be something they’d want to think about beforehand, but for this kind of side conversation they can easily wing it.
Well, in CRPGs, we have no such adaptable game master to flesh tings out if we “step outside the bounds”. The limits of the content are highly visible. We can’t walk into that area. Non-plot NPCs have two dialogue lines they repeat. Etc etc.
A skilled writer can create intricate, powerful dialogue. But they can’t cater for the player asking anything outside what they’ve set down. In any role-playing game a player will eventually want to try something “outside the lines”. This is why P&P has guidelines for DMs to create on-the-spot rules and advice on how to act as various characters.
Vince & I are simply thinking about what we can do to give the player that option. It’s not about needlessly slowing down dialogue, it’s about offering more choice to people who want them, more opportunity to role-play, more ownership of the experience. :)
I believe a game should use as many techniques as possible to convey important information and ‘realistic’ atmosphere.
It is true that, as in life, you really don’t want a detailed, near-endless conversation with everyone to whom you say “How are you?”. However, removing even inconsequential dialogue from RPGs would make them simple hackNslash games. Also, the more controlled the dialogue, the closer the CRPG becomes to a console game (parser solutions would never be used PSP, in part because many of its users can’t spell [ok, that was a low blow]).
Dialogue trees should be used only for game endings or skill enhancements. In that way the player can actually determine how his/her PC would grow and the game end. Also, it would mean the designer would only have to supply a finite variety of possible dialogues (something they seem to do anyway).
Keywords could be used for non-important NPCs (the bartender, the guard, the Fed-Ex employer, etc.) For minor bosses, it could even be used with a mood-type control or skill roll (sarcastic, diplomatic, etc)
Xian’s voice over suggestion is excellent (and I really don’t think game studios give one hoot about the .01% of deaf or otherwise impaired players). In fact, NWN used something like that — Deekin, one of the party’s optional NPCs, would constantly comment on various places. And, I think interaction between party members should actually be expanded to include an Eliza-type parser. Having the option of ‘talking’ to your fellow adventurers could only enhance the experience. If the parser cannot interpret your sentence, the NPC could either throw out some information, call a dialogue tree, or simply reply with “Huh??? Have you been fooling with those unmarked potions again?” Of course, the player should also be able to close down any of the voiceovers and/or free dialogue with a simple game option click or an emphatic “Shut Up!” :)
Interesting that a lot of stuff on conversation systems is coming up at the same time I started a series of blogs on conversation systems in interactive fiction games (just posted one today, in fact).
One of the main reasons I brought the subject up is that I feel conversations in most mainstream games are superficial, simplistic, and algorithmic. Some of the systems used in a few IF games are fairly sophisticated and well done, with resulting conversations that flow smoothly and can change depending on the context. I think this is the kind of thing that mainstream games could look into, if only they would put the effort into it.
It’s also one of the reasons for doing the Vespers project: it’s based on an IF system, which means the conversations are implemented as they are in the IF game. In other words, conversation is part of the gameplay mechanics.