[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Because you have to check all the possible conversation paths to be sure that the player can't miss a crucial elements, and if there are, say, 5 forks by conversations, that's 3x3x3x3x3 paths to check for each dialog.

Not every discussion would have to be a major branch. It's not like most of the conversations you have in real life are major turning-points, right?

[Phantom]

I'm sorry, but your system is very confusing, it's just too limited, and not dynamic enough. In some cases, an exclamation mark could be used to describe 5 different, valid and appropriate responses (yes! no! **** off! this is so cool! Come in my arms for some sweet lovin'!), while in other cases it doesn't make sense at all.

I like the idea, but it would be much more interesting if the icons changed after every step to the three most appropriate responses. For example a thumbs up, a thumbs down, a fist, a question mark, and so on. Something more descriptive, so that you at least have an idea what he's gonna say. Right now it's a guessing game, an exclamation mark could really mean anything, and even the changing colors don't really help. But when you make more icons, you're pretty close to Fahrenheit's system, I guess.

I really felt like I didn't have control over the conversation. You say we're not playing 'ourselves', but an annoying prick you made up to give some criticism on your own blog, but it's the same for every game. Most of the time you play a fleshed out character, and you have to make choices in place of this stranger. I really can't think of many games that let you play 'yourself'.

[insane_cobra]

Sorry, but similar systems have been in use since god knows when, just without all the confusing bits (coloring, character not saying what you want her to say, redundant "thinking" or "..." icon which really doesn't make much sense - character is supposed to be thinking till the moment you click on one of the icons).

[SoccerDude28]

I think this is kinda like Fahrenheit's system (just like someone else said here).
The only difference is that you are coloring the icons to show state, fixing the number of choices to 3 instead of a random number, and replacing the text by pictures.

My biggest problem with this in fahrenheit was that not all paths lead to all the information, and it sometimes made me miss some key points about the plot, especially towards the end.

In your case, I can argue that it is even worse. In real life I know exactly what I want to say based on what the other player says. Here, not only do I have a fixed number of things to say but I don't even know what the hell I'm saying. I can picture myself getting frustrated clicking on some of these buttons, and getting responses that had nothing to do with what I was thinking.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Phantom

For example a thumbs up, a thumbs down, a fist, a question mark, and so on. Something more descriptive, so that you at least have an idea what he's gonna say. Right now it's a guessing game, an exclamation mark could really mean anything, and even the changing colors don't really help. But when you make more icons, you're pretty close to Fahrenheit's system, I guess.

It's the same as Fahrenheit, except you are changing text with pictures.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by Ninth

Also, the Fahrenheit system is kind of similar, and it works sometimes really well, and sometimes it ends up being very confusing.

I concur, and it's got to be the worst handling of dialogue ever. While that system had contextual options, instead of three, rather limited options.

It's not the system that makes the dialogue sound like conversations or not. It's the talent of the writer. Fallout and Bloodlines had dialogue that felt like conversations, The Longest Journey didn't. 1994, I played a game called Rings of Power, and that game had very similar dialogue to how you describe, accept one word instead of a cryptic picture. Minus the colours, which Bloodlines had, but in a far more intelligent way.

The fact is, you're just adding another layer to a regular system, changing the sentences to icons, adding a boolean description of how the character will recieve that sentence.

[jjacob]

Isn't Dreamfall supposed to utilize a similar technique? (judging from the screenshots) Although not with icons but simple keywords, I think that's a lot more viable than this system. Were you intending on presenting the player character dialogue that resulted from the icon or not? Because that could get really confusing and feel "forced" (i.e.; resulting in "I didn't want to say THAT" reacton with the player). I don't think three icons can make a dialogue a better experience, it's too limited IMO. Still, an interesting idea that needs a bit of work

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Fallout and Bloodlines had dialogue that felt like conversations, The Longest Journey didn't.

You see, it's the complete opposite with me. I liked Fallout's dialogue system in which your character's stats modified the dialogue options. However, I don't remember much of the dialogue itself, I found it quite forgettable.

TLJ's dialogue, on the other hand, is one of the most memorable aspects of the game, although it used the standard choose-your-line system with no modifications. Dialogue is one of the things that made it stand out from other games exactly because it was so lifelike, at least for me.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

You see, it's the complete opposite with me. I liked Fallout's dialogue system in which your character's stats modified the dialogue options. However, I don't remember much of the dialogue itself, I found it quite forgettable.

TLJ's dialogue, on the other hand, is one of the most memorable aspects of the game, although it used the standard choose-your-line system with no modifications. Dialogue is one of the things that made it stand out from other games exactly because it was so lifelike, at least for me.

Fallout's dialogue was conversations, that included responses to the dialogue. TLJ's dialogue was a series of speeches made by the NPC, with "uh hu" options from the player.

Fallout's dialogue had topic openings with pathways that made sense, TLJ had an opening menu with topics, then it was straight linear passages that didn't have a quit.

Fallout would intelligently shorten the dialogue the next time round. TLJ made you do the exact same path, completely the same as the last time.

The writing of them is different, Fallout's characters mostly acted like regular people, TLJ had a bunch of people that seemed to be there for only the purpose of informing or fustrating the player. Bloodlines is superior to Fallout in this regard, also with the intergration of character stats into the system.

TLJ would have been more like Fallout, in the first chapter techniques are used that aren't as good as Fallout, but atleast add some variety, and are actual conversations. The rest of the game is as I have described though.

[insane_cobra]

Originally Posted by Aj_

Fallout's dialogue was conversations, that included responses to the dialogue. TLJ's dialogue was a series of speeches made by the NPC, with "uh hu" options from the player.

There's some truth in that.

But I'd never say Fallout characters acted like real people, after the first time you'd talk to them they'd become even more of dry service/quest providers than TLJ NPCs. And they repeated lines too, at least in Fallout 2. I haven't played Fallout in a long time and my Fallout CD went fubar.

[Aj_]

Originally Posted by insane_cobra

There's some truth in that.

But I'd never say Fallout characters acted like real people, after the first time you'd talk to them they'd become even more of dry service/quest providers than TLJ NPCs. And they repeated lines too, at least in Fallout 2. I haven't played Fallout in a long time and my Fallout CD went fubar.

Yeah, I found there's a problem in Fallout 1/2 and Bloodlines, some of the characters run out of things to say, and just throw out "nothing" statements. I'd prefer they just stop talking accept for the random one-liners that you see outside the dialogue system.

[stepurhan]

I can see what you are saying about it being what the character would say not what you would say. I think that is both the strength and the weakness of the system.

Strength - Character gains own personality. Said personality is revealed through approach to dialogue rather than expositional description

Weakness - Loss of player control heightened when responses differ radically from player expectations.

While I find the idea interesting and the example workable I would be put off by the weakness. I want to feel in control when playing a game and sometimes getting characters to say stupid/inappropriate things is part of that. I think I'd find any serious divergence from my expectations (I want to be able to ask something specific but the "character" keeps asking about things I don't feel are important) would frustrate me.

Nice idea and well implemented technically from what I can see but, for my gaming style, a flawed concept.

[MoriartyL]

Thank you, stepurhan. At least one person sees the point.

[bigjko]

I see the point, and feel the need to point out that you're never missing out on any information. I get the same information even if I'm playing stupid (i.e. pressing the "...") or being aggressive or questioning in every step. I just get different variations of the information. (And if I didn't, who says I couldn't start the conversation again with the person, and just not be over-the-top rude from the start.)

I would love to see this implemented in a game. The example is too short to actually go and judge the system imperfect.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

I was given a reality check: the ideas I was taking for granted as the ideal are not ideas which anyone else even cares about.

I don't think you read our replies correctly It needs some work, and is not perfect, but a nice attempt nonetheless. The major downside however, is how the player dialogue can differ from what one would expect - the exclamation mark for example would insult someone in a dialogue while it was not intended by the player. Perhaps it'd be better to combine the icons with one keyword to convey what the player would say. Also, how would you plan in-depth/highly specific conversation?

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by jjacob

I don't think you read our replies correctly It needs some work, and is not perfect, but a nice attempt nonetheless. The major downside however, is how the player dialogue can differ from what one would expect - the exclamation mark for example would insult someone in a dialogue while it was not intended by the player. Perhaps it'd be better to combine the icons with one keyword to convey what the player would say.

No, I did read your replies. What you are listing as a downside was half the point of doing this in the first place. I want this system to surprise the player; I want the player to wonder why the character is behaving as he is. I'm not interested in hearing what the player would say, because the player is not the character in the story. I believe that the player must not be the character in the story, for good interactive storytelling to be possible. I've talked about things like this in the past in old threads. But where I see potential for great storytelling, the rest of you see only difference. The hammer that sticks out gets hammered down and all that.

The parts you seem to see as flaws I see as the most promising aspect of this system. You tell me how I should "improve on it" by making the player feel more in control, but that is the last thing that needs to be done. That's a step backwards. If I were to move forward from here, it would be by making the player less in control.

Let me try to put this as plainly as possible: I think that as far as the story is concerned, the player is nothing more than a bunch of neurons firing around in the character's head. The player decides how to start the thought process which will lead to a line of dialogue, but he should not have any more control than that. The player will learn who this character is by looking at how that line changes on the course from intention to action. Because in between the intention and the action is always the personality. That's just realistic.

I'll give an example of something I'm very proud of. At the very end, after the PC has heard everything I have to say, the player may press the blue question mark expecting and wanting to hear more. The character asks instead, "Can I go now?". This will feel awkward, yes; that's the whole point. It's jarring, so that the player will ask himself: "Why did it come out like that?". The reason is that this character never wanted to hear my idea in the first place. The player might have pushed him to listen to my idea, and he may have even pressed me on, but it wasn't because he was genuinely interested. Right there, you have a character. Take away the discrepancy between the intentions and the actions, and that character disappears. Hence so many adventure game characters with no personality at all.

In short, I have read and understood your complaints. And I think most of you are missing the point. I'm not intending this as an alternative to dialogue trees, I'm offering it as a replacement. I'm trying to look to the future, and all you're doing is showing me that it's different from the present as if that's a bad thing.


Here's the one thing which I now see must be changed: If it were to be used for a long game, there would need to be descriptive text for each one. Something like this:

....!............?.............
Statement......Question......Thought

Also, how would you plan in-depth/highly specific conversation?

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

[Spiwak]

I think the best possible dialogue (most realistic anyway) would be to simply type in what you want to say/ask and somehow program specific responses based on key words and punctuation. You wouldn't be allowed anymore than a single thought in a sentence. But say an NPC tells you "You must go to the Aztec Temple." You might type in, with the buzz words triggering a certain response in bold:

How do I get to the Aztec Temple ?
What is the Aztec Temple ? (or simply, The Aztec Temple ?)
Why must I go to the Aztec Temple ?
I don't want to go to the Aztec Temple !

Etc etc...but the problem with that is that in having to supply buzzwords and punctuation that in itself would prove unrealistic and perhaps unwieldy. It'd probably need to be programmed with a lot of openness and that's something I don't think programmers/writers need to be wasting their time on. So in conclusion I say that the currect system with specific sentences is good enough for me.

Your system could work but it'd have to so dumbed down to do so. The dialogue couldn't be very complex at all if it could generate only one possible question or one possible exclamation. Maybe if you had it set up where, NPC says something like "Walk my dog to the grocery store and feed him when you get back." then the dialogue choices will play out more like

? dog
? grocery store
? dog food

that way the player knows at least a general idea of what they'll be saying, without providing a the whole thought for the player.

[jjacob]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

No, I did read your replies. What you are listing as a downside was half the point of doing this in the first place. I want this system to surprise the player; I want the player to wonder why the character is behaving as he is. I'm not interested in hearing what the player would say, because the player is not the character in the story. I believe that the player must not be the character in the story, for good interactive storytelling to be possible. I've talked about things like this in the past in old threads. But where I see potential for great storytelling, the rest of you see only difference. The hammer that sticks out gets hammered down and all that.

I understand what you're trying to accomplish by this, and it's not really a downside to your system, but it does need some work. I'm not trying to hammer your idea down, just offer constructive criticism I, too, have found it tedious at times to click on a sentence when having a dialogue in a game.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

The parts you seem to see as flaws I see as the most promising aspect of this system. You tell me how I should "improve on it" by making the player feel more in control, but that is the last thing that needs to be done. That's a step backwards. If I were to move forward from here, it would be by making the player less in control.

Well, as I said, a keyword accompanying an icon would be an improvement IMHO - it would avoid unnecessary confusion but still retain the core improvement of your idea (again, IMHO). Let me use it in an example:

....!............?.............
..Object..........Elaborate....Opinion(ate)

Without context it's hard to make up fitting keywords, but hopefully you get the idea. Otherwise let's use an example of a detective game, where the player is talking to a witness;


....!............?.............
Introduce.......Murderer.......Analyse

The first (!) option would make the detective introduce himself to the witness, "I'm detective O'Maley, I'm going to ask you some questions.." etc. The second (?) option would go straight to the point and cause the detective to ask the witness if he or she saw the murderer. The last icon (dots) would have the detective give his analysis so far of what went down, to see if the witness would concur.

Originally Posted by MoriatyL

Let me try to put this as plainly as possible: I think that as far as the story is concerned, the player is nothing more than a bunch of neurons firing around in the character's head. The player decides how to start the thought process which will lead to a line of dialogue, but he should not have any more control than that. The player will learn who this character is by looking at how that line changes on the course from intention to action. Because in between the intention and the action is always the personality. That's just realistic.

I agree, the player should not be 'forced' to be the player character, merely steer him or her to actions and such. That's what I like about your idea.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

I'll give an example of something I'm very proud of. At the very end, after the PC has heard everything I have to say, the player may press the blue question mark expecting and wanting to hear more. The character asks instead, "Can I go now?". This will feel awkward, yes; that's the whole point. It's jarring, so that the player will ask himself: "Why did it come out like that?". The reason is that this character never wanted to hear my idea in the first place. The player might have pushed him to listen to my idea, and he may have even pressed me on, but it wasn't because he was genuinely interested. Right there, you have a character. Take away the discrepancy between the intentions and the actions, and that character disappears. Hence so many adventure game characters with no personality at all.

Agreed. For this very reason it feels like many protagonists have no personalities.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

In short, I have read and understood your complaints. And I think most of you are missing the point. I'm not intending this as an alternative to dialogue trees, I'm offering it as a replacement. I'm trying to look to the future, and all you're doing is showing me that it's different from the present as if that's a bad thing.

I'm not saying that it's bad because it's different from what I'm used to in games, I'm saying it needs work, that's all.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

Here's the one thing which I now see must be changed: If it were to be used for a long game, there would need to be descriptive text for each one. Something like this:

....!............?.............
Statement......Question......Thought

Actually, that descriptive text can easily be taught to the player in a short tutorial-ish intro (simply at the start of the game). I was thinking more along the lines of an added keyword/descriptive text that changes for each dialogue.

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Well, most adventure games don't have linear dialogue, which is why the dialogue tree was created. I'm not sure how that would translate to your idea. How were you planning to handle multiple topics in a conversation?

[Fop]

What's the point of player interaction at all if the player doesn't know how his choices affect the character's behaviour (or the options don't perform consistently, which amount to the same thing)?

[Spiwak]

It seems I basicaly suggested what jjacob already suggested. I really think the whole system would work much better with a little keyword just sort of specifying the nature of the action. I had a more specifc idea in mind by accompanying each action with the specific buzzword attached to it but jjacob's works too, with just simple narrowing of the universal !-action or the ?-action. At that, having more than one question/exclamation present at a time seems to make more sense to me, since there's generally more than three ways to approach any given conversation (realistically, I mean).