JE Sawyer comments on dialogues and stuff

[dojoteef]

Robert Jordan's first Wheel of Time book had a similar amount of characters, with good detailed given to the important ones and not much given to the minor characters, but as he kept writing, his books became more convoluted, with more and more useless characters coming into the mix, together with detailed descriptions of their motherfucking braids that nobody cared to read about. The end result was a convoluted mess of unimportant characters with the most important of all the characters, Rand Al'Thor, eventually having no personality whatsoever. Suffice to say, I hate Robert Jordan's books.

Well you had to pick a subject that would strike a nerve with me, didn't you . I had typed this big spiel about how Robert Jordan's books rock and you are just making him out to look bad, but I said fuck it. If you don't like his books, it's no skin off my back. I think he's great and I love the Wheel of Time books.

Now more to the heart of the matter for npcs and naming them. If you meet someone and their name comes up in the conversation, then they should be given a name. I'm not just talking that if someone is unimportant don't put their name into the conversation, I'm saying if it doesn't fit into the conversation. Let's say you are looking for someone in particular whose name you know, let's say Exitium. You've been given a rough description of the person and there seem to be several people that meet the description. You could either go around asking people their name, or ask if there name is Exitium. Both ways are valid and you could put both options in their with different sorts of responses. For example if the PC was a really hot chick and the person you are asking is some horny guy, then if you asked him if his name was Exitium, he might lie and say he was just to get your attention. Then again had you asked what his name is he wouldn't be able to lie to you and you could cut the conversation short. This might be an overly complicated example, but it does illustrate the point. If a name would come up in the course of a normal conversation the person should be given name.

On the other hand if you went up to a street vendor with his wares on display, you wouldn't need to ask the person's name in order to buy something from them. If you do more interaction with the person other than buying, then maybe his name might come up, but before then it doesn't really make sense to give him a name. I think you are underestimating people's ability to decide the importance of a character. You are simply saying that it would be too much trouble to decide if someone was important or not if everyone had a name. I think this can be true with poor design, but the opposite can be the case if the design is done well.

A lot of issues simply come down to whether someone spends the time to make sure the design scheme they've decided on makes sense to people or not. Whether it's giving every npc a name or just giving a select few a name, if it's not designed well, it can be confusing.

Well, I'm tired of typing on this now.

 

[Limorkil]

Yes it really is a bit stupid to consider doing anything other than a minor tweak on something that has been done successfully before. Stop talking about the earth orbiting the sun because we have all these perfectly good astrological charts based on the sun revolving around the earth.

You might have a point if the idea of innovation was actually an improvement over the existing system.

Its the old "Here is an example of what you are talking about done really badly to prove that it can never, ever, under any circumstances work well." argument. If I had a nickel etc.

Two examples actually. So explain to me how this system would work and why it would be an improvement over regular dialogue trees. From what I can see, the only benefit a keyword system has over a dialogue tree is reducing the number of player character lines by converting all character dialogue to generic "ask about" "tell me about," which is less work for writers/developers. Problem with that is that you take all the personality out of the interactions, likely turning NPC's into quest/information machines by relegating the flow of information in just one direction, cripple your chance of making viable skill checks within dialogues, waste the players time with an artificial distraction that is neither fun, nor immersive... That doesn't sound like innovation to me.

You seem to be the one with all the systems so why don't you explain it to me? What the hell is a "keyword" system, for example. My point was that people find it really easy to shoot down new ideas and defend the status quo. Reactionary statements are the refuge of the dullard, which is why its pointless trying to discuss anything new in a constructive manner in an open forum. For every person wanting to discuss an idea there are always ten others ready to take simple pot-shots at it without contributing anything useful to the discussion.

Why do you think dialogue trees are so great? Have you ever used an ATM and thought "Why is it asking me whether I want English or Spanish, surely the bank knows what language I speak?" (This is a US example, not sure whether ATMs in other countries ask about languages or not.) In the same way, it seems rather brainless to me that a dialogue system would keep giving me choices like this:

1. "Don't worry, I'll find your daughter for you"
2. "Forget that, hand over your purse, moneybags"
3. "I'll get onto her, I mean *it*, right away"

Based on my character, there is almost no thought required to choose a response. If I have been all goody goody up until now then its unlikely that #2 or #3 are of any use to me at all. What if what my character wanted to say is not one of those options at all? Why even bother asking me to pick one? Its just the illusion of choice, as is giving people options and then having the NPCs next action be the same regardless of which one you pick. I realise that this is an extreme example, but in all the games I've played with multiple choice dialogue at least 90% of the time there really was only one choice, which begs the question why even bother?

Personally, regardless of the "system" used, I just prefer to have dialogue that does not lead me by the nose. This can work perfectly well even with dialogue trees. I remember that Ultima 7 had multiple choice dialogue, but the one thing I liked about that was that you always had some general statements you could make like "How are you?" and "What is your background?" (I'm making those up, I do not recall the actual ones). Sometimes those general questions gave you clues. I much prefer that to the situation I see in many games where one of your dialogue choices is something like "Tell me the secret of the Black Hand Gang" and I'm sat there wondering how I knew to ask this particular NPC about that subject. I would just prefer to have a dialogue system where I choose what to ask rather than the game deciding for me.

I hate the situation, which happens all the time, where I talk to an NPC but am unable to talk about what I want to talk about because the game decides that it is not an option. How come I can demand money from some people, but not others? Why can I attack this person, but not that one? How come that never mind how rude I am, people always end up telling me what I need to know anyway? Why can't I tell them to stuff their quest? Surely its not that hard to make the dialogue more intelligent. The problem is that people are more focused on telling a story rather than roleplaying, because with roleplaying the emphasis should be on letting your character say what he or she wants to say, and not what the story dictates you should say. I think there is a lot of room for future innovation and pea-brains insisting that the world is flat do not contribute anything to the discussion.

 

[EEVIAC]

You seem to be the one with all the systems so why don't you explain it to me? What the hell is a "keyword" system, for example.

From one of your earlier posts :

• Limorkil : For example: yes, typing in responses is SOO 1980s but why couldn't you implement a system where you highlight a word or phrase in something an NPC said and then add a standard lead-in to it, like "Tell me about..." or "Who knows more about ..." etc.

Notice that you're suggesting the player highlight a word or phrase? You could call any of those words "keywords," thus you have a keyword system.

My point was that people find it really easy to shoot down new ideas and defend the status quo. Reactionary statements are the refuge of the dullard, which is why its pointless trying to discuss anything new in a constructive manner in an open forum. For every person wanting to discuss an idea there are always ten others ready to take simple pot-shots at it without contributing anything useful to the discussion.

If you're throwing new ideas out there, expect them to be analyzed and disputed. Its a beneficial process. Its easy to be locked into an idea so much that you can't see the obvious flaws that someone new to the concept will. Happens to me all the time.

Why do you think dialogue trees are so great? [...] In the same way, it

seems rather brainless to me that a dialogue system would keep giving me choices

like this:

1. "Don't worry, I'll find your daughter for you"
2. "Forget that, hand over your purse, moneybags"
3. "I'll get onto her, I mean *it*, right away"

The benfits of dialogue trees can't be represented by one block of text. The way in which dialogue is presented to the player is important. Providing information that is communicated in conversation in a conversational way is much more effective than using an encyclopedial method that keyword systems generally fall in to. Its not meant to be a perfect analogue, because the capability to do that simply doesn't exist. It mimics the natural communication of information, and if well written, maintains the illusion of meaningfull interaction.

What if what my character wanted to say is not one of those options at all? Why even bother asking me to pick one?

This is inevitable, and its not system specific either. Although developers can't provide contingencies for everything idio... I mean players would want to say and do, they can provide options that are congruent with the basic character/moral archetypes they ask the player to select from at the start of the game.

Its just the illusion of choice, as is giving people options and then having the NPCs next action be the same regardless of which one you pick. I realise that this is an extreme example, but in all the games I've played with multiple choice dialogue at least 90% of the time there really was only one choice, which begs the question why even bother?

That's an example of bad dialogue design and bad writing, not a bad system. Whichever way you present no-options is going to be rotten.

I would just prefer to have a dialogue system where I choose what to ask rather than the game deciding for me. [...] I hate the situation, which happens all the time, where I talk to an NPC but am unable to talk about what I want to talk about because the game decides that it is not an option.

Seems like a waste of effort to me. (Just what is it you want to talk to NPC's about?) I just assume if I'm playing a game where there isn't an option to ask for information I want, that the NPC doesn't know, or whatever they know is meaningless. I'd rather that than being given the option to ask everyone everything and have to sift through lists of generic responses.

How come I can demand money from some people, but not others? Why can I attack this person, but not that one? How come that never mind how rude I am, people always end up telling me what I need to know anyway? Why can't I tell them to stuff their quest? Surely its not that hard to make the dialogue more intelligent.

Not every option is going to be viable in every situation. (Being able to attack people is a game design issue, not a dialogue issue though. Being able to kill any and all NPC's should be the first amendmant in the RPG Bill Of Rights.) So long as there's options for different character types and different play styles, and providing there's believable causality, I don't have a problem with the limitations.

I think there is a lot of room for future innovation and pea-brains insisting that the world is flat do not contribute anything to the discussion.

People that take their George Michael records and go home when their ideas are scrutinized don't add anything to the discussion either.

 

[JJacobsen]

I do believe there is plenty of room for improvement for more interactive NPC dialogue and for more convincing NPCs in general. I think it is a huge challenge though. Human written dialogues won’t be replaced but CAN be integrated with AI to make it more versatile. It is an incredible amount of work to make dialogue adaptable but it is possible, if not necessarily practical from a development standpoint. It can also be a nightmare to implement properly given the complexities of dynamic interaction. Perhaps specialized development tools can be created to help manage this?

I also think giving NPCs more sophisticated behavioral AI could dramatically help with immersion. I always hate it when NPCs are rooted to one spot 24/7. I’m starting to see games that are addressing these issues. NPCs are starting to behave more realistically and actually look like they “live” in the world you are exploring. I think this will keep getting better as time goes by. I heard about something that the next Morrowwind game will employ for its NPCs called RadiantAI. Does anyone know any of the details on that? I’d be interested to know what kinds of things it will do.

 

[Sol Invictus]

It is really one thing to give an important (the degree of is unimportant here.) NPC a name, especially if he is requested or referred to in a quest, or by another NPC. That would be the reason why he had a name. He needn't be a central character or someone you'd even talk to more than once, but he'd have a name regardless.

Now more to the heart of the matter for npcs and naming them. *snip rest*

I fully agree. That's completely different from naming every single NPC in the game, even ones which aren't referred to, though. That would simply be very, very pointless.

As for that stuff on Robert Jordan, you really should start a thread on why you think his books are good, and we will talk about them. I've read up to book 3.

 

[Limorkil]

People that take their George Michael records and go home when their ideas are scrutinized don't add anything to the discussion either.

I agree. If you are referring back to the original thread then the guy did over-react. However, his point was that he wanted to discuss ideas and all he got was responses like:

"That was done before and it didn't work, therefore it will never ever work."

"Some developer said that was a lot of work so I guess its not worth talking about."

"Bioware keep telling us that dialogue trees are the best and we believe them because we love Bioware."

"There are plenty of examples of bad dialogue systems of different types. However, I can use one example of bad dialogue in the system you are talking about as a reason to throw the idea out of the window, while simultaneously dismissing all criticism of dialogue trees as merely people citing examples of bad design."

So I can somewhat emphasize with his exasperation, even if I do not think it warrants turning rabid. And George Michael is some 80s pop dude yes? Sorry the reference is lost on me.

I do believe there is plenty of room for improvement for more interactive NPC dialogue and for more convincing NPCs in general. I think it is a huge challenge though. Human written dialogues won’t be replaced but CAN be integrated with AI to make it more versatile. It is an incredible amount of work to make dialogue adaptable but it is possible, if not necessarily practical from a development standpoint. It can also be a nightmare to implement properly given the complexities of dynamic interaction. Perhaps specialized development tools can be created to help manage this?

Exactly. One of the big problems as I see it is that people naturally prefer spoken dialogue. So not only do you have to find a way to construct reasonably convincing sentences from constituent parts you also have to find a way to speak the sentence out loud without sounding like the speaking clock. This. Will. Be. Hard. To. Do.

When home computers were new there were adventure games where you typed in what you wanted to say, the game tried to interpret this, and then you got a response. Most of these were very poorly done, but the better ones did give you the impression that you could say anything to anyone and get a reasonable response. Okay, so quite often the response would be along the lines of "Thorin ignores you" or "Thorin says 'What are you on about'" but as long as there was enough variety in the 'negative' responses the dialogue worked reasonably well and was immersive. Now I don't think we should go back to that style, but it did have the advantage that the game wasn't choosing what you could say, although it was choosing what you could say that would actually get you anywhere in the game. The difference is that when you did come up with something that got you somewhere, you felt like you had done it on your own without the game doing the thinking for you. I have no idea how we get to that, but that is what is missing from a lot of RPGs. The more you can "say" yourself, the more you are roleplaying your own character rather than somebody elses.

One point of note is that these old dialogue styles where you construct your own sentence, or ones where you pick a topic to talk about, do not have any emotion in the dialogue, which is a significant weakness. Alternatively, there are games with no real dialogue but emotional gestures, like Fable (if you consider farting emotional). The advantage of a multiple choice dialogue tree is that it combines both a subject and a tone, so you can essentially be given the same thing to say three different ways and the reaction you get might (might) vary depending on how you say it. Thats what I think is missing from a lot of other ideas about implementing dialogue. Picking discussion topics a list is dead boring for roleplaying purposes. What we need is a way to combine the subject and tone. I suppose you could pick them from two different lists, but then how do you avoid: <Shout angrily> "More sugar in your tea vicar?" Maybe you don't - it could be entertaining.