Yeah, I've played it recently, there is lots of options that gave me the feeling they're only there for 'cosmetical' reasons. But I doubt it improves the aesthetics of the dialog - especially if you can easily spot that you've just been tricked by false option (even without reloading and checking it - simply enough, the resulting NPC answer feels like it fits the other option better).
J.E. Sawyer on key dialogue writing concepts
- Thread starter Sander
- Start date
Yeah, I've played it recently, there is lots of options that gave me the feeling they're only there for 'cosmetical' reasons. But I doubt it improves the aesthetics of the dialog - especially if you can easily spot that you've just been tricked by false option (even without reloading and checking it - simply enough, the resulting NPC answer feels like it fits the other option better).
13pm said:
BioWare makes a tradition out of it. The worst game that did it is probably Mass Effect-with-Sword Rise of the Argonauts, were none of the dialogue 'cept in one sequence matters. The worst BioWare title is probably Jade Empire, they even mock it themselves in that game.
Yeah, but that is as much through it's retarded "innovative" keyword-based dialogue wheel than due to its normal BioWare fake-choice writing.
Fake choices are something I've been raging against for ages. Glad to see Sawyer agrees.
Fake choices are something I've been raging against for ages. Glad to see Sawyer agrees.
aenemic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
note that he mentions entertainment value as a possible reward, which could easily be another way of saying "if both choices lead to the exact same outcome, but one of them has hilarious dialogue, then it's ok". not saying that will always be the case, but I'm sure there'll be a few such occasions.
Morbus said:
Actually, I don't think that this is much of a problem. At least for me. It's just very important to me that a NPC is reacting on this like a real person would do. Example: If you want to ask an NPC 10 times why his nose is so big, then you can, but I expect the NPC to react on this sooner or later. Like:
1. Why is your nose so big?
2. This is none of your business.
1. Tell me, why is your nose so big?
2. The fuck, I've told you already that it's none of your business.
etc.
It's not that hard to write alternative lines for a dialog node.
This is common knowledge. All writers know this and it goes for all texts, basically: you either use your sentence to inform the reader or to keep the action going. That's it. All the rest is junk language.Sander said:
Again: Sawyer is inventing hot water here. It's common sense. I reckon only 'écriture automatique' deviates from this and mayhaps some poetry.
An exit is necessary. More so, I'd like to be offered an exit every time I get new dialogue options. Feels way more natural and free.
Hehe. I don't agree with this for two reasons:
[1] false options can be used in a very creative way. Say an npc life is at stake and you get three options to save that npc, yet none of them helps and the npc inevitably dies. I can see a quest like this being succesfully implemented in an RPG. You know: anger and frustration are also feelings that can help create a strong story.
[2] 'Cause it's not realistic. Dialogue, for instance, is littered with false options (different nodes (questions) that all lead to the same node (answer)). The whole network of nodes and sieves (one option splitting up into two or more new nodes) has to be controlled by funnels at some point (turning two or more options back into one node), otherwise the system would be infinite, endless. What preceeds a funnel are always false options.
Just saying.
As in the previous quote: "always give at least two options", well, that's impossibble to do without adding false options or lots of exits. Just think about it.
Meh. If dialogue is controlled by your stats, karma and so on, I see no reason why the writer wouldn't put words in the player's mouth. If the game keeps track of what you did so far and calculates that you are an arsehole, your dialogue should reflect this.
Reward it by having a relalistic dialogue system that reflects the player's skills, stats, gender and previous choices. Thank you.
Common sense.
Good points, but I can't say I agree on all of them.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
My solution is to simply only allow each question to be asked once (bar stuff like "let's trade") and give the player a non-immersive dialog journal to go back to what was said, if he wants.Lexx said:
But it's hard to structure the lines in some cases. AND play testing. Add to this the common influence meter and you have a hell of a job. It's certainly feasible if you have a whole team of dedicated writers, of course. But I don't know if that happens, even in the big studios. I think it's mostly the level designers and one or two main writers that mostly walk around all day day dreaming and stuff.Lexx said:
Forget something like that in an indie game without a dedicated writer.
To agree with it is one thing. To actualy change it another. I think they will do a much better job then Bethesda that for sure but that isnt hard anyway. So I hope we will see this real choices in the game at some point.Brother None said:
Its not hard to write it. But its hard to give everything a voice ... now I never been a fan of full voiced dialogues for ALL NPCs. I prefer much more the way how it was used in Fallout 1/2, Baldurs Gate or similar games where you had either only a few dialogues voiced or only some key NPCs with full developed voices.Lexx said:
How Mass Effect, Dragon Age and if you want Oblivion/Fallout 3 do it is in my eyes counterproductive to dialogues and alternative answers from NPCs cause its simply wishfull thinking to expect many dialogues and different possible answers from NPCs and ALL of them to have some voice. While some wall of text might not please the kidz from today that much anymore ... its still kinda stupid how some NPCs react in modern RPGs today as they feel to me at least very unatural and artifical the way how Bioware is doing its NPCs romance anyway. At no point do this characters convince me in the same way like some talking heads from Fallout 1/2 or a few characters from planescape tourment.
It's not hard to voice it as well, but it's expensive. The more words, the more money for the voice actors.
And yes, I like simple text + voice over in some cases more too.
What he means is "don't give two options that look like two completely different ones, and yet come to the same conclusion". It's okay to have this:
1. Hello there, sir. Sorry to disturb you, but could you please give me the directions to the nearest pub?
2. Can you tell me where the nearest pub is?
3. Hey, shithead! Tell me where is the nearest pub or I'll make your dentist unemployed!
4. [Ask him where the nearest pub is using gestures and mimics].
All leading to the same conclusion, said in different way. It's okay, because otherwise they are putting words in the player's mouth, and it's nearly obvious that it leads to the same result. I'm not counting the entertainment value as reward for that individual case.
A several completely different actions, leading to the same result is okay to use just a few times in the game, when the story makes up for it.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
I don't think that's ok either, because you kind of expect someone to like you less if you call him a shithead or if you patronize him.
But yeah, that's what he should mean.
I think it applies more on dialog exists and "back" dialog (dialog lines you use to go to a previous node or something like that). Most of the times those aren't given particular attention, because NPC are info kiosks...
But yeah, that's what he should mean.
I think it applies more on dialog exists and "back" dialog (dialog lines you use to go to a previous node or something like that). Most of the times those aren't given particular attention, because NPC are info kiosks...
Jidai Geki
It Wandered In From the Wastes
Blackened said:
The thing is, they don't all look completely different. 1) and 2) are the same question in different registers, and may or not may elicit different responses from the other speaker. 3) is threatening, and should lead to a different response to 1) or 2).
I don't think that's quite what he was getting at. A 'false option' would be, à la Bioware, giving three options that ostensibly sound different- a sympathetic option, an indifferent option, a callous option- that actually all produce the same dialogue from your character, and thus the same response from the other speaker.
In your example, each choice ultimately fails to save the NPC's life, but that's not to say that each one should elicit the same dialogue in response from the person to whom you're speaking.
I don't pretend to be a programmer, but I don't see why, in your example, an option can't split into two 'nodes' which then lead to two final, ultimate answers. Why do they have to end up at the same point? Having two dialogue branches, to my mind, doesn't necessarily mean that they must then exponentially split until you have a myriad of end results.
I officially love J.E. Sawyer.
Jidai Geki said:
All I'm claiming is that false options always sneak in. If every option leads to a unique path (or an exit dialogue) they will need a couple of years more time to pull it off. Even in text heavy rpg's like Torment and Arcanum false options are present.
Morbus
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
No. You.EDK said:
I'll use one of my dialogs as an example.
I hope you understand the structure. It works better in XML. Anyway, this is a very specific example, and probably the most obvious example of this issue in all the dialogs I've written so far for Wendigo, but it shows my point very well. Even 1B eventually leads to a 1A1 equivalent, once the kid focuses on the gun again.
Alphadrop
A right proper chap.
Huh, I can't actually think of a long conversation in Fallout 3 that follows these rules.
[Intelligence] So you're saying Fallout 3's dialog writing isn't very good?
I think Sawyer is talking about false options as they pertain to central plot devices or paths, which trick the player into believing that the end result will change, which it does not.
Other than the mediocre slideshow at the end and the ability to choose werewolves and/or golems in the final battle, DA:O plotwise plays exactly the same no matter what choices you make. I started a second playthrough as an 'evil' male mage after my first playthrough as a 'good' female rogue, and I quickly realized that it was the same thing all over again.
There was no difference between turning in Jowan and helping him. Duncan comes, same path out. A few references later on, but not significant to the story.
Of course, I only played a few hours before quitting the second run.
Other than the mediocre slideshow at the end and the ability to choose werewolves and/or golems in the final battle, DA:O plotwise plays exactly the same no matter what choices you make. I started a second playthrough as an 'evil' male mage after my first playthrough as a 'good' female rogue, and I quickly realized that it was the same thing all over again.
There was no difference between turning in Jowan and helping him. Duncan comes, same path out. A few references later on, but not significant to the story.
Of course, I only played a few hours before quitting the second run.