Vault Dweller said:
First, in the gaming context cinematic does NOT mean non-interactive movie. It means as close to cinematic experience as possible [without losing interactivity]. Game aspects that are usually referred to as cinematic are combat and dialogue, and both require constant player's input.
That's what I'd like it to mean, but counterexamples like Heavy Rain or ancient Psychic Detective (and, to take less extreme, but more jarring example, as it is declaratively a RPG, Mass Effect) convince me otherwise.
In my opinion, the flashing mouse buttons worked well in Mass Effect 2. You watch what's happening on the screen and instead of being interrupted by a large dialogue screen with specific text options, you can press a button and your character will react accordingly. Even though it was just a mouse click I can't say that at any moment the action that followed took me by surprise. That's cinematic. Instead of reading and comparing text options, you react to what you see on the screen.
I consider reading an approach where more cerebral activity is involved, and more cerebral activity is a good thing. Reading and interpreting well written sentences, weighing nuances in expression and choosing seems more natural. At least you have more control of what your character will say. I haven't played Mass Effect 2, so I can't comment on whether they have managed to express the intent of a character well.
First person/third person games were always going for the different kind of immersion - immersion through graphics and cinematics (tracing runes with your mouse, trying to put you IN the game, going for realistic visuals and feelings that you're actually there, swinging your swords, dodging enemy's attacks, feeling the impact of a strike, etc). It's a different way, that's all.
Look at what Bloodlines did with the characters: facial animations, mannerism, voice-overs, etc. Tell me it was a waste of money.
Attempting to capture natural interaction (which I consider requirement for immersion) in these aspects, while settling for simplistic interaction in a dialogue does not seem a smart strategy (see: Oblivion, which failed even in those aspects that were supposed to be its forte).
Bloodlines had all the elements you mentioned AND well written dialogue options, expressed as complete sentences. Without the latter, I wouldn't be able to overlook its flaws and consider it a good game. If AP was a game with "cinematic elements" (not limited to visual elements, sound is extremely important element of the atmosphere and was superb in Bloodlines) similar to Bloodlines, with a similar character system, similar XP gain system and similar dialogue system (I don't doubt level of writing, since Avellone is involved), I would praise it instead of scorning it.
Do you play RTS games? Do you not make decisions there or do you helplessly watch the unfolding action?
I used to play them years ago. I don't any more (I think Starcraft was last RTS I've played). I find their level of complexity and interactivity inferior to TBS. They bore me.
They are not inferior. They are different (which probably explains the "kill it with fire" reaction).
Aren't they? Do you type or say a list of keywords when talking to another person, or do you utter complete sentences? One is natural reaction, and another is simplification, due to certain constraints.
One can easily argue that the player who reads dialogue options, clicks on the best option, gets to the next screen with the NPC response and new lengthy dialogue options is not playing a game but reading it. Choose your own adventure books, basically. Are you absolutely certain that it's a 100% better way than watching an interactive movie?
You might argue that if you assume that a game contains nothing but dialogue which, as we know, is not true (but even in that extreme case I would say that any choose your adventure book is better than
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4MeADQaKSNM)
Always having the best option in a dialogue is not a good thing, but that's another topic.
Dialogue options should be well written, expressing different attitudes, emotions and choices, and other party should react accordingly, choices should have different consequences (ideally there should be no optimal choice), delayed consequences should be implemented, etc. Instead of choosing between "suave", "aggressive", etc., corresponding dialogue options should be available and the player should think about which tone to take. If the options are well written, and the player is literate, he will think about which approach is appropriate for a situation and which sentence expresses that approach. In AP style dialogue, you think about the first, but are hand held through the second, so there is necessarily less (re)activity involved. Not directly related, but explicit [Skill] options in a dialogue represent a different form of hand holding and should be avoided - well written options should enable the player to know when he is using a skill in a dialogue.
The main flaw of full dialogue lines is that you get very specific lines that may or may not be exactly what you want to say.
That's not a flaw in the system, but a flaw in the interpretation. Well written sentences should clearly express subject (in a broader sense, it may be an action, an object, an action on an object, etc.) and attitude (tone). All relevant and applicable combinations should be expressed as sentences and if they are and the writing is good, there is no reason to complain.
The problem with AP or ME system is that the PC still utters a complete sentence hyperlinked by the chosen keyword, so it doesn't avoid this potential flaw - it still hinges on good writing just like full dialogue trees.
The keyword design, which, btw, have been around since the Ultima days, fixes this problem (but introduces new ones), thus being neither superior nor inferior, but a different choice. Like I said, it's a different type of immersion: watching the events and reacting vs reading and pondering.
See my preceding paragraph. AP keyword system is not Ultima IV keyword system. In Ultima IV you had to type in keywords and if the keywords matched their data, NPCs would respond with information. The fact that you had to be attentive and write down things to use in later dialogues was a huge part of the charm of such a system. On the other hand, dialogue didn't seem natural and that the NPCs were a little more than information dispensers, which is a serious flaw, when compared to dialogue system in, e.g. Fallout, but in 1988 there was no alternative (to my knowledge, correct me if I'm wrong). Unlike Ultima IV, Ultima VII showed the player keywords in advance - which is just a small step away from full dialogue trees. Nothing of value would be lost if the keywords in Ultima VII were replaced by full sentences formed around those keywords, and natural flow of dialogue would be gained (I assume competent writing).
That's why I mentioned "in the light of current technology". I should have mentioned the budget - hiring a competent writer or a team of writers shouldn't be a problem for mainstream developers. Indie developers, whose games focus on combat and exploration wouldn't be faulted for going along with a keyword system.
I see 1 keyword - 1 subject relation as a major flaw of a keyword system. I'd prefer a keyword system akin to the way a sentence is formed, with a predicate (an action), a subject (who does the action), an object (which the action is done upon) and a tone to be available for choice in a keyword system (it is not necessary to choose all four every time and nonsense choices should mark PC as a lunatic). Still, I'd prefer a full sentence approach along these lines, but there could be to many possible combinations to make it feasible. I haven't mentioned stats, skills and previous experience affecting available dialogue options, but I assume that implicitly.
I know they exist, but are they effective, or do they only lead to player reflex dependent minigames?
You tell me. You are the one with a strong opinion.
I read somewhere on the Codex (might be this topic) that they lead to minigames. If their implementation is similar to the implementation of skills in Ass Effect, they are, in my opinion, not effective. I hope for the best, but expect the worst.
