[Spiwak]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

If I might ask, what were you planning on doing with this experiment, Mory?

If it is just a personal experiment, then I could understand ignoring feedback (although IMHO that makes posting a thread about it a complete waste of time).

But if you plan on ever using this for practical purposes - i.e. putting it in a game - then ignoring player feedback is the virtual equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot.

Personally I agree with Jackal... I think one of the problems facing the adventure game genre (at least in terms of "mainstream viability") is that it limits "real" interactivity compared to other genres, and this sort of system, while interesting in its own ways, would just exacerbate that problem.

I could maybe see it working in a "virtual dollhouse" sort of game, like a "The Sims" sort of deal, where the whole point of the game is to do nothing but observe characters you don't directly control anyway.

Peace & Luv, Liz

I totally agree with that whole post.

But if mory's going to do more with it I'd liek to see where he's taking it before making any hasty judgements. After all, all that has been seen is a single conversation in obviously very early development. But mory's dismissal of everyone's opinions seems like a good way to not only create a bad game but to also make everyone hate it before they even play it. First impressions, man...first impressions.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Jeysie

If I might ask, what were you planning on doing with this experiment, Mory?

Well, nothing right now. Right now I'm using what I've learned on this exercise to try again to pull off my game idea. ("Smilie" has no dialogue whatsoever, but it does use branching paths.) In the future, I intend to fold this feature into the rest of the blog as one of my more advanced writing devices. I have no plans to make full games with this system any time soon. So yeah, this is for my own personal use.

IMHO [ignoring feedback] makes posting a thread about it a complete waste of time

Not at all. Rejecting other people's views forces me to reexamine what my position is. Also, I needed an outlet for random considerations, and forum posts fit the task. A typical forum post takes roughly two minutes. A typical blog post takes anywhere between two hours and two days. So you can see why I'd gravitate toward writing on the forum for things like this.

Personally I agree with Jackal... I think one of the problems facing the adventure game genre (at least in terms of "mainstream viability") is that it limits "real" interactivity compared to other genres, and this sort of system, while interesting in its own ways, would just exacerbate that problem.

You're probably right about that. I haven't considered the business applications of this idea at all.

[MoriartyL]

I've changed my mind- the system is incomplete. It's good for reactive dialogue, but no one's ever purely reactive. Even in the short dialogue I've written, the character does radically change the topic at one point. I thought that part was realistic enough, given that it's based on a conversation I had once, but there isn't any way to anticipate that. So I propose a third color- green. Green is the color of proactivity. The question is how it would be presented; if the character is being proactive, the player can't anticipate what he's going to do even if he knows the character well, and I don't want that. Maybe there would be a short keyword attached to some green buttons. I'm not sure how it could work. Any thoughts?

[Spiwak]

The keyword should work. But if you just attach the keyword to the system to begin with then you might not have to create a whole new color.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Spiwak

The keyword should work. But if you just attach the keyword to the system to begin with then you might not have to create a whole new color.

No, no, definitely not. I don't like the keyword idea; I'm looking for a better alternative, if possible. It's definitely not a good idea with the red and blue.

[Fop]

Originally Posted by MoriartyL

I've changed my mind- the system is incomplete. It's good for reactive dialogue, but no one's ever purely reactive. Even in the short dialogue I've written, the character does radically change the topic at one point. I thought that part was realistic enough, given that it's based on a conversation I had once, but there isn't any way to anticipate that. So I propose a third color- green. Green is the color of proactivity. The question is how it would be presented; if the character is being proactive, the player can't anticipate what he's going to do even if he knows the character well, and I don't want that. Maybe there would be a short keyword attached to some green buttons. I'm not sure how it could work. Any thoughts?

That's interesting. You might want to rethink the color scheme so the player won't be confused with the standard red-yellow-green with completely different implications.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Fop

That's interesting. You might want to rethink the color scheme so the player won't be confused with the standard red-yellow-green with completely different implications.

Well, I think RGB is probably the most intuitive color combination, but I suppose the colors could be changed. In any case, this is hardly an important issue.

[Fop]

It's not really. If you have red and green, red is negative and green is positive (not "proactive"). The third color to be expected is yellow for neutral, but instead you have blue for positive.

[MoriartyL]

Well, I guess it could be black, white and green. But that's a secondary issue.

Let's say the PC starts the conversation. This is already impossible to handle with the current system since the six buttons are designed to work for reaction. But let's say, somehow, the PC starts the conversation. The PC will no longer be the one reacting; he'll be leading the conversation for at least the first few branches. Here, I'll give an example:

Got a minute?
Sure.

Already at this point, the six-button system is useless. Is the PC going to ask a question about the word "sure"? Is he going to make a statement about the word "sure"? Is he going to ponder for a few moments why the NPC would have agreed? Of course not- he's going to push forward. It's the NPC here who is reacting. Which means that the player needs an entirely new interface for whenever he is in the lead of the conversation.

This raises a number of very interesting possibilities. First of all, there would need to be a way to switch between the interfaces mid-conversation. This is interesting because it points out a new layer of complexity in ordinary conversations- trying to take control of the conversation and willingly giving it up. Secondly, with another interface designed for proactive dialogue, it is very simple to envision a two-player adventure game, in which the two players' characters interact with each other.

But what should this interface be like?

[Kurufinwe]

Moriarty, I don't want to sound harsh, but if it's taken you four pages to realise that conversation isn't just about agreeing/disagreeing with what the other has just said, or making statements/asking questions about that, you're just going to spend the ten years or so reinventing the wheel.

If you're really interested in the matter, I suggest you do some research on the question of conversation mechanics before going back to your interface design. A little bibliographical work in the field of conversation analysis, and some time spent on Google scholar searching for related subjects (esp. in relation with computer gaming) might be of tremendous help to you, and prevent you from wasting your time.

[MoriartyL]

Okay, I've got a few new ideas. First of all, scratch what I said about two interfaces- it's a bad idea. Too confusing. And my analysis of the example dialogue was off- I was thinking in the terms of red and blue. The question mark would not ask a question about what has been said, it'd ask about the subject which is about to be introduced. Red and blue look backward, green looks forward. So a question mark in this case might have continued "I was wondering if...", etc.

Secondly, there don't always need to be three dialogue choices. In the middle of a conversation, there must always be three, but at the beginning and end there can be two. If there is only one, it will usually be an exclamation mark, but this is only for very extreme cases in which there is only one thing to be said that would make sense. When a button cannot be pressed, it should either be grayed out or disappear.

Third, I think the three buttons should be a permanent part of the game's interface. The first benefit of such an arrangement would be the ability to have the character speak (or think) to himself as a part of gameplay. Secondly, I like the idea of starting dialogues with these buttons. You would just walk up to someone, and instantly the question mark and exclamation mark would both light green. You'd click on one of them to start the conversation. I think this is better than a "talk to" button, which makes the dialogue feel more separate from the rest of the game. Alternatively, a NPC could run over and start the dialogue when he sees you (if he's in a hurry to tell you something) and the buttons would be reactive.

That leads me into my fourth and final idea, with which I think this system will be as close to perfect as it can get (for real this time) - If a button will lead directly to the end of a conversation, it should clearly be marked "END". That way, the player will know how to get out of a conversation he's not interested in, and can avoid exiting if he is interested.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

[MoriartyL], I don't want to sound harsh, but if it's taken you four pages to realise that conversation isn't just about agreeing/disagreeing with what the other has just said, or making statements/asking questions about that, you're just going to spend the ten years or so reinventing the wheel.

Why would I need to reinvent the wheel?- it's complete now.

I know very well that real-life conversations are very complex, but if I were to create an interface which accurately represented all its nuances, it would be a complete mess. It would be impossible to learn to use without going through a two-hour tutorial, and even after all that it'd seem clumsy. Not to mention that when you're giving the player all that control, the character once again disappears. I'd prefer to keep the complexity in the writing, and simplify the interface.

[Kurufinwe]

Fine by me. If you think your system is 'complete', insist on not trying to understand criticism, and don't think you may gain anything from having a look at what others have tried to say before you on the matter, don't let me stop you. The whole history of human progress in the last two and a half millennia has shown that this attitude never led to anything fruitful, but I have better things to do with my time than trying to prevent you from going down that path.

[MoriartyL]

Now that's just cruel. There's been a lot of great achievements from individuals- like a lot of great art, for instance. But if there's some inadequacy I'm missing that you see, then by all means, tell me! If it's not complete, and I'm making a mistake, then what good will it do for you to turn your back on me? Please, tell me what you think!

[Jeysie]

Mory... we've already given you 4 pages worth of feedback.

Yes, individuals can create great art, but even they do not do so in a vacuum... they are often familiar with what has already been done and how their audience reacts to certain techniques.

Kurufinwe has a point about doing research. Not only of real-life conversation, but how various games have handled it. As people have stated, at least some of what you're attempting has already been done, so the question is looking at how to extend/refine what's already been done in a way that creates a better gaming experience.

Peace & Luv, Liz

[Kurufinwe]

^ exactly

I very much doubt anyone can really do anything innovative and good (scientifically, artistically, design-wise, etc.) without having a good knowledge of the state of the art --- whether to build upon it or reject it. I'll spare you Newton's quote about the shoulders of giant, etc., but... well... he had a point.

So I think the least you should do is examine what already exists in games. I don't think anyone wants more of the awful 'explore every conversation branch at your leisure until you've done all of them' system (BTW, am I the only one who thought that Bone hit a world record for clunkiest conversation system?). But what about Fahrenheit? Under a killing moon / The Pandora directive? Discworld? And what about Daughter of Serpents, where characters speak in bubbles, and you can either right-click to say nothing, or left-click on certain words to steer the conversation in that direction? Is there nothing worth taking there? And if things should be rejected, why?

I also think you need examples. Examples of particular conversations from games, which either worked very well with their system, or rather awkwardly. And then you can try seeing how they would work using the system you propose. Better? Worse? Why? What should be improved, then? And, since it's a complex matter, I think having a look at the general theories about conversation could help you. I'm sure they can distinguish various categories, with various types of mechanics; you can then see if your system is well-suited to those various types. And if it's not, you can start thinking about how you could improve it --- or decide you don't want to tackle those types of conversation, and be ready to stand by your choice.

Finally, do not be too fast to reject criticism. Any sort of honest criticism, even if it's harsh, even if it's not constructive at all, is an idea --- and as such infinitely precious. It should always be closely examined, and if it's rejected, you should always know precisely why you decide not to cater to certain people' wishes, and then be ready to go on with that decision. Believe me, there are few things I hate as much as humility (cf. my forum name, or ask Jack for confirmation) --- but, at the end of the day, I have to recognise that it is the only path to progress.

[MoriartyL]

Originally Posted by Kurufinwe

What about Fahrenheit? Under a killing moon / The Pandora directive? Discworld? And what about Daughter of Serpents, where characters speak in bubbles, and you can either right-click to say nothing, or left-click on certain words to steer the conversation in that direction?

I'll try to check them out.

The truth is, I came up with this idea not for use in adventures at all, but for use in RPGs. I'm not as familiar with the former as I am with the latter (especially Japanese RPGs). The issue I had was that either an RPG would use a horrendous dialogue control system (such as KotOR's dialogue trees) or no control over dialogue at all. I was looking for something more effective at fleshing out characters. It was only when I decided to flesh out the system more that I realized it could work well for adventures. So I hope I can be forgiven for not looking into adventure-geared dialogue systems.

So, just so that you understand, I didn't start out intending to reject other systems. I was looking to create a working one, where I didn't see any. But somehow, it always ends up with me rejecting everything...