I thought there was stupid dialog?

I

Idiotfool

Still Mildly Glowing
I just rolled a stupid character and I'm sorely disappointed. Of the conversations I've had in Goodspringds, I have seen no indication that I have 1 intelligence. Hell, I see no difference, so far, between this and my 9 int character I've been playing...

Anybody else disappointed with the lack of stupid dialog?
 
There's not nearly enough imo. Even if the "stupid" dialog only showed up for characters with an intelligence of 1, it would be better. But as it is there are still a couple of places where there is some "stupid" dialog I think. Just not very common, not like in FO1 and 2.
 
It was said that "stupid" dialogue options will be only in a few places and not over the whole game, so no, I am not disappointed, as I never expected it.
 
Idiotfool said:
Anybody else disappointed with the lack of stupid dialog?
Click to expand...

:(

Yeah.. but if you want stupid dialog all over a game then you can probably pick up Fallout 3 pretty cheap ;)
 
[Endurance] I played Fallout 3 for hours and hours on end and discovered that the dialogue was aver.....

Unfortunately I couldn't say that because I didn't have a bazillion endurance points.

But yeah I wasn't dissapointed because i'm in Lexx's case here. But I never ever go for less than 3 intelligence I prefer to actually roleplay but it's impossible in F3 and FNV because you get a crap load of skill points because of my high intelligence, that was a bit complicated.
 
Idiotfool said:
I just rolled a stupid character and I'm sorely disappointed. Of the conversations I've had in Goodspringds, I have seen no indication that I have 1 intelligence. Hell, I see no difference, so far, between this and my 9 int character I've been playing...

Anybody else disappointed with the lack of stupid dialog?
Click to expand...
I think as a simple role playing game Vegas is one of the few really good out there.

But expecting a PNP like roleplaying experience like it was maybe present with Fallout 1 or Fallout 2 might a bit to much considering the mass of games today.

We should be really happy that it hasnt ended in the "mass effectivsh" dialogues where your choice looks silly, or that the writting isnt as poor like in Fallout 3.

That you will not get proper roleplaying is a sad fact we simply have to accept I think.
 
I wouldn't equate good roleplaying with well written player dialogue options. Sure, it does help to define your character, but in the end, it's the ability to make decisions and change the story that defines your character, not how good your character responses are.
 
For the record, I agree with Tagaziel.

I really don't give a toss about well written lines which add little more than fluff to the proceedings. However, if those well written or witty lines can open up new avenues of discovery or engender unique responses and actions from NPCs then I'm all for it.

In some ways, this is just the literature equivalent of the age old graphics debate (i.e. limitations in execution engendering imagination from the old school but lack of immersion in the new)... only in a generational reverse (old schoolers get pulled out of their immersion with poor dialog whereas new schoolers just use their imaginations to fill in the blanks, to a degree).

Odd that.
 
Anarchosyn said:
In some ways, this is just the literature equivalent of the age old graphics debate (i.e. limitations in execution engendering imagination from the old school but lack of immersion in the new)... only in a generational reverse (old schoolers get pulled out of their immersion with poor dialog whereas new schoolers just use their imaginations to fill in the blanks, to a degree).

Odd that.
Click to expand...

Fallout 3 does not suffer from "blanks." Fallout 3 suffers from railroading players through nonsense.
 
Tagaziel said:
I wouldn't equate good roleplaying with well written player dialogue options. Sure, it does help to define your character, but in the end, it's the ability to make decisions and change the story that defines your character, not how good your character responses are.
Click to expand...
What you name should be obvious of course.

I was more trying to go with the role playing part or the expression. That your choices should somewhat matter and not just be cosmetics is more then obvious. For a good RPG at least.

But with the market in RPGs today offering more or less just sand box or "action" RPGs (what ever that now is) with less and less concentration on Roleplaying what you see is games which concentrate on 1 or 2 archetypes and see it already as roleplaying if you choose a sword instead of a bow (yeah like that is the ONLY difference in a thief and paladin ...) but ignoring the pnp aspect of roleplaying and where it came from originaly. I am not saying that EVERY game has to play that way. But I am missing the diversity. I guess you know what I mean. In the past there have been rooms for games to coexist like Morrowind and Baldurs Gate, Fallout or Diablo. No game feelt really like the other one. And that was a good thing. Today it always feels like companies just clone previous titles. Or many games have the same shallow background (Arcania ? Oblivion ... both boring like crap and Dragon Age feelt to me like Kotor 1 in a fantasy setting)
 
Nalano said:
Crni Vuk said:
"action" RPGs (what ever that now is)
Click to expand...

In short, third person shooters with stat progression.

God, I'm getting more cynical by the day.
Click to expand...

I'm there with you on the cynicism but I think the low you referenced is still few years off.

Fallout and Mass Effect are definitely low points in the evolution of tactical game play but the writing and, more importantly, the reactivity of narrative to player choice are light years beyond shooter (even in Mass Effect's limited case, though the "decisions spanning three games" element adds a nice trait rarely seen even in older titles).
 
Tagaziel said:
I wouldn't equate good roleplaying with well written player dialogue options. Sure, it does help to define your character, but in the end, it's the ability to make decisions and change the story that defines your character, not how good your character responses are.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this... why play a game at all if you want to imagine everything? I made a stupid character, he should be stupid. I make a strong character, he should be able to do things that require that strength (combat, lifting items, etc.)

My character's decisions define my character as much as the stats of my character. For instance, Barack Obama is the President. His actions define him, but he's still the first African American president (stat)...
 
Anarchosyn said:
Fallout and Mass Effect are definitely low points in the evolution of tactical game play but the writing and, more importantly, the reactivity of narrative to player choice are light years beyond shooter (even in Mass Effect's limited case, though the "decisions spanning three games" element adds a nice trait rarely seen even in older titles).
Click to expand...
Though hasnt even Bioware "somewhat" admited that Mass Effect was "not" an RPG ? ( I mean not really admited, but like "yeah we know it got almost no RPG in, but its still AWESOME SHITZ!" or so )
 
Idiotfool said:
Tagaziel said:
I wouldn't equate good roleplaying with well written player dialogue options. Sure, it does help to define your character, but in the end, it's the ability to make decisions and change the story that defines your character, not how good your character responses are.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this... why play a game at all if you want to imagine everything? I made a stupid character, he should be stupid. I make a strong character, he should be able to do things that require that strength (combat, lifting items, etc.)

My character's decisions define my character as much as the stats of my character. For instance, Barack Obama is the President. His actions define him, but he's still the first African American president (stat)...
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're hitting the limit of CRPGs.

Technically speaking, all that you mentioned can be planned and accounted for... but that's a looooooooot of stuff to plan out and program in. In TT RPGs, the DM can ad lib and/or make stuff up on the fly - and every DM knows just how often players fly off the rails.

CRPG programmers, on the other hand, see a looooooooot of work to account for all manner of weird events and decisions that most players will never, ever (ever) see... so they just do the vanilla stuff most players will bee-line for.
 
Have you ever played NetHack? That's a good example of a game where the Dev Team truly thinks of everything a player can do. Basically every key on the keyboard is used for a different command (as is the case with most roguelikes) and there are a lot of funny things you can do. There are some humorous lines the game gives you if you do something impossible, too: if you try dipping a potion into itself, for example, the game will tell you "This is a potion bottle, not a Klein bottle!" or something of that sort. :P
 
Nalano said:
Idiotfool said:
Tagaziel said:
I wouldn't equate good roleplaying with well written player dialogue options. Sure, it does help to define your character, but in the end, it's the ability to make decisions and change the story that defines your character, not how good your character responses are.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this... why play a game at all if you want to imagine everything? I made a stupid character, he should be stupid. I make a strong character, he should be able to do things that require that strength (combat, lifting items, etc.)

My character's decisions define my character as much as the stats of my character. For instance, Barack Obama is the President. His actions define him, but he's still the first African American president (stat)...
Click to expand...

Sounds like you're hitting the limit of CRPGs.

Technically speaking, all that you mentioned can be planned and accounted for... but that's a looooooooot of stuff to plan out and program in. In TT RPGs, the DM can ad lib and/or make stuff up on the fly - and every DM knows just how often players fly off the rails.

CRPG programmers, on the other hand, see a looooooooot of work to account for all manner of weird events and decisions that most players will never, ever (ever) see... so they just do the vanilla stuff most players will bee-line for.
Click to expand...
\

No, I'm just hitting the limit to what they implemented in THIS game. They could have at least bioware'd it, where there's no difference in NPC responses, but the character dialog (which isn't voiced) could've been written differently... with the occasional additional conversation options. For example, if responses to Doc Mitchell's questions could all be caps and exclamation points, it would've sold it that I was a stupid character. i.e.:

Doc Mitchell: Tell me the first thing that comes to mind when I say a word.

Doc Mitchell: Night

You: "Err?"; "BANG!'; "DARK!"; [CHARACTER NAME] & "!"


I would've been satisfied with this.

I may look into scripting to at least do Goodsprings with stupid dialog.
 
I've gotta agree that Goodspring of all places should have "stupid" dialogue. In a RPG of this size, with a history of stupid charcter's having a voice there should be a unique response from minimally Doc Mitchel, House, and Ceasar; but really adding a unique stupid introduction line for one or two characters per major location would take one developer all of 3 hours. Likewise there should be unique lines for characters with a charisma on either the very high or very low end of the scale. Not a full dialogue tree, but an acknowledgment of how dashing/ugly you are (plus things like Charisma 9 or 10 = free hooker use, Charisma 1-2 = doubled price and Kings won't let a disfigured person in no matter what).

------------------

On the mentioning of Mass Effect carrying decisions across 3 games....sure that is cool, but there is such a terrible small amount of freedom in that "RPG" that it really bums me when I hear game journalists raving about the many incredible choices in the game. Choices such as: will of sleep with character A, B, or C. Will I kill the Collectors because I want to, b/c it helps humanity, or b/c freaky eyes said too?
I play and enjoy most Bioware games, but I've seen it said that one of their failings is that every character they ever have you play save the world/universe. It gets old. There isn't much a choice of roles if success is always judged by how I save the realm/galaxy, and perhaps their RPGs could behefit from having a storyline where the character is dealing with a less global issue and more a personal or local task.
 
smber2cnma said:
I've gotta agree that Goodspring of all places should have "stupid" dialogue. In a RPG of this size, with a history of stupid charcter's having a voice there should be a unique response from minimally Doc Mitchel, House, and Ceasar; but really adding a unique stupid introduction line for one or two characters per major location would take one developer all of 3 hours. Likewise there should be unique lines for characters with a charisma on either the very high or very low end of the scale. Not a full dialogue tree, but an acknowledgment of how dashing/ugly you are (plus things like Charisma 9 or 10 = free hooker use, Charisma 1-2 = doubled price and Kings won't let a disfigured person in no matter what).
Click to expand...


I created a topic abouth this some time ago, charisma excepted for barter, speech and the "nerve" of your companions don't have a single influence in the game.
The same goes for inteligence, except in this case it will affect how much skill points will be available for you, but there's hardly a difference from a 2 inteligence character to a 5 one excepting some dialogs.

This is a shame in my opinion, inteligence could at least affect your hability of survival, weapon crafting or your capacity of persuation..

On the mentioning of Mass Effect carrying decisions across 3 games....sure that is cool, but there is such a terrible small amount of freedom in that "RPG" that it really bums me when I hear game journalists raving about the many incredible choices in the game. Choices such as: will of sleep with character A, B, or C. Will I kill the Collectors because I want to, b/c it helps humanity, or b/c freaky eyes said too?
I play and enjoy most Bioware games, but I've seen it said that one of their failings is that every character they ever have you play save the world/universe. It gets old. There isn't much a choice of roles if success is always judged by how I save the realm/galaxy, and perhaps their RPGs could behefit from having a storyline where the character is dealing with a less global issue and more a personal or local task.
Click to expand...

Except that Mass Effect shouldn't be a trilogy, only after the first they made the decision.
Of course the PR and devs will deny.

The first showed a lot of promisse as well a lot of faults, but with a little tweaking and some adjustments in the story and decisions, it could be a terrific RPG.
And yes, Bioware called the first ME "RPG", not FPS, A-RPG or whatever.

Problem is, the second game pad things out A LOT, so the real decisions that affect the story could be implemented on the third.
This is lame, very lame in my opinion.

For example, I'm playing a build in FO specialized in barter, speech, survival (your companions don't use stimpaks, but use food, so give them a lot of desert salads! :lol: ), with minimal combat skills.
My charisma is in 10, but my weapons skill is avarage at best.

I don't have to fight if a option to solve the problem by dialog is presented and when I have to, my companions are beasts.
This "nerve" thing really made difference, contrary what wikia says.

[ ]'s

[ ]'s
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top