Bioware on Writing for Digital Actors

[Judge Hades]

I have no problems in reading a lot of text in a video game. For me a video game is just another mode of entertainment, like a good novel or film.

[alanschu]

Although when it comes to modern video games, word count could very well apply to the numbers of lines spoken as well. Voice actors aren't free after all. But Bioware is likely in a position where they can have as many words they damn well please in their games, they've been succesful enough in the past.

 

I'm not so sure. I think it's the fact that they want to keep reading down. Typing text in a game is cheap. Yes a voice actor costs money, but I think it was meta that was showing, especially for the big budget AAA titles, voice acting costs represent a very, very small amount of the overall cost. I think he references GamaSutra.

 

 

I have no problems in reading a lot of text in a video game.  For me a video game is just another mode of entertainment, like a good novel or film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

This would have significance if you were a representative sample of the bulk of the video game industry.

[Tigranes]

Actually, it's not. I asked Hades for examples, but he opted not to.

 

Oh. My verbosity has entirely substituted for clarity, it seems. Let's see..

 

Difference between paraphrasing and full-blown dialogue options: in one, you make a choice of generalised intent. In the other, you make a choice of both generalised intent and specific connotations that can only be delivered through the wording, the tone, the individual words. These are important not only in that they are eventually delivered (which paraphrasing does), but in that they are fully visible BEFORE we make a dialogue choice. Why? Because then our choices can be that much more specific. It's like saying there's a choice between a green apple and a red banana (yeah, sue me), and ME says "Apple or Banana", IE engine says "Green Apple or Red Banana". Perhaps, ultimately, whether it's green or red doesn't really matter; it certainly doesn't to the game mechanics and the NPC responses. I'm saying it is in the act of player choice itself, not what comes after, that we should be given a full understanding of available options, because then we can make a choice that we identify with / desire to the most.

 

Again, nobody can tell us what's so good about paraphrasing - especially since 1/ you see the text eventually, 2/ nobody wants 'surprise' in that context, that's a stupid excuse and 3/ it really won't cut down on the publisher's text-limit thingie. We gain nothing; and what we lose is the fullness of choice, thus roleplay.

 

I mean, come on.

Option 1 - I'll kill you.

Option 2 - It's not honourable to kill you.

Option 3 - Give me money and you can live.

 

Compared to:

Option 1 - Prepare to die, evildoer!

Option 2 - While you deserve death, there has been enough killing this day.

Option 3 - There are many paths to survival in this world. Money is one of them.

 

Can you say there are ANY reasons to prefer the former, or say that they are the same?

 

You will also notice that if choosing from the first row led to the second row (as ME does), then there may be players scratching their heads; maybe they selected "Kill" because they were sadistic, not because of a sense of justice. Either these types of stupid 'surprises' will abound, OR dialogues will become straightforward and simplified, thus sacrificing textual excellence.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Tigranes

[Judge Hades]

Why not have both. Set up a script that detects how the player has so far played his character and take note of what class and skills the character has. From that data it can give use the appropriate options in which represent the role playing we have done so far with the character.

[Tigranes]

Yeah, then we can click 1 until the conversation is over.

[alanschu]

Actually, it's not. I asked Hades for examples, but he opted not to.

 

Oh. My verbosity has entirely substituted for clarity, it seems. Let's see..

 

Difference between paraphrasing and full-blown dialogue options: in one, you make a choice of generalised intent. In the other, you make a choice of both generalised intent and specific connotations that can only be delivered through the wording, the tone, the individual words. These are important not only in that they are eventually delivered (which paraphrasing does), but in that they are fully visible BEFORE we make a dialogue choice. Why? Because then our choices can be that much more specific. It's like saying there's a choice between a green apple and a red banana (yeah, sue me), and ME says "Apple or Banana", IE engine says "Green Apple or Red Banana". Perhaps, ultimately, whether it's green or red doesn't really matter; it certainly doesn't to the game mechanics and the NPC responses. I'm saying it is in the act of player choice itself, not what comes after, that we should be given a full understanding of available options, because then we can make a choice that we identify with / desire to the most.

 

Well, surely you'll see that the apple is green, and the Banana is red, in the actual game.

 

Again, nobody can tell us what's so good about paraphrasing - especially since 1/ you see the text eventually, 2/ nobody wants 'surprise' in that context, that's a stupid excuse and 3/ it really won't cut down on the publisher's text-limit thingie. We gain nothing; and what we lose is the fullness of choice, thus roleplay.

 

I argue that, ultimately, unless the dialogue is written exceptionally poorly, the player chooses what to do based on intent, not the words that are written.

 

I mean, come on.

Option 1 - I'll kill you.

Option 2 - It's not honourable to kill you.

Option 3 - Give me money and you can live.

 

Compared to:

Option 1 - Prepare to die, evildoer!

Option 2 - While you deserve death, there has been enough killing this day.

Option 3 - There are many paths to survival in this world. Money is one of them.

 

Can you say there are ANY reasons to prefer the former, or say that they are the same?

 

The illusion of choice is not any greater. You're just given the benefit of seeing what you are actually going to say before you say it. Given that in both cases, your character will still say it, then I don't see it as that big of a difference. In both cases, the character is still going to ultimately do what I want him to do. The big caveat is if the dialogue is good or not. The only time I can see people really choosing a dialogue option that has the intent they want, but doesn't because of the choice of words, is because of really poor dialogue.

 

You ask me to provide reasons to prefer the other one, when quite honestly I don't think the reasons you've given me for the traditional way are deal breakers either. I guess it's all about preference.

 

You will also notice that if choosing from the first row led to the second row (as ME does), then there may be players scratching their heads; maybe they selected "Kill" because they were sadistic, not because of a sense of justice. Either these types of stupid 'surprises' will abound, OR dialogues will become straightforward and simplified, thus sacrificing textual excellence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If that sort of situation presents itself, then it's a knock against the system. If the paraphrase is more appropriately chosen "Kill for justice" (or some other more creative way) then nothing is lost as far as I'm concerned.

 

On the other hand, it's quite possible that dialogues become much more than straight forward. It's quite possible that this type of system was implemented because quite frankly, the dialogue options would have been far too long. To the point where you'd only see one or two options without scrolling. This works the same if the number of dialogue choices signficantly increases. Displaying 9 dialogue options in a text window below can become cumbersome, and intimidating, especially if some of them happen to be verbose. This cleans up the interface by removing clutter, and still allows the player to choose the course of action that they want to follow.

[Llyranor]

Here's Mass Effect's dialogue system in action.

 

http://www.gametrailers.com/player.php?id=...ype=mov&pl=game

 

I can't say I'm very impressed. The system just seems like an excuse for the devs to movie director.

[alanschu]

Not too surprisingly. Games seem to have been making the transition to cinematic experiences since graphics were introduced.

[Llyranor]

Yes.  And in this discussion, we naturally have to compare with the other implementation, which is full dialogue options.

 

How could I ask you for examples for a paradigm that hasn't been implemented yet?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The new Bard's Tale :D

 

It apparently sucks at being a humoristic game. Action 'RPG'. Essentially, as the Bard, you get to choose whether to be 'good' or 'bad' during conversations, and you'll go through some prescripted dialogue sequences. Be careful though, sometimes being good will come back and bite you! Sometimes being bad is also not the best thing for you!!! The problem is that it's pretty random.

 

Judging from the ME trailer above, it doesn't seem to be the same way. It's just simplified intent options that being full-fledged cinematic cutscenes of awesomeness. For a console game, tagging each option to one button isn't necessarily a bad interface decision. It makes accessing the options faster. My main gripe with said trailer isn't the 'system' per say, it's the bad melodramatic writing/storytelling, from what little we've seen. Add in stellar writing, and I couldn't care less what kind of dialogue system you're trying to use.

[alanschu]

I was under the impression that Mass Effect was an Action RPG as well.

 

And from what I can tell, you don't get to play your own character either, but rather Commander Shephard.

 

 

Given both of these impressions, I suddenly think the idea becomes much more moot.

 

Llyranor does have a point, that interface issues become much more important on a console.

[Volourn]

"If it was in fact done bad, would you critize your beloved Bioware?"

 

No. Everyone knows I have, and will never criticize BIO. Never. You will never find one post out of my thousands of them on any interent board ever criticizing BIO in ANY way. Not even once. Not even by accident, or a moment of weakness.

 

Everyone knows I believe BIO is perfect, their games are perfect, they are gods.

 

Period.

 

 

"And from what I can tell, you don't get to play your own character either, but rather Commander Shephard."

 

You shoudln't discuss games you know so little about espicially ones thata ren't released yet.

 

There are three things that you cna't choose about your characetr in ME:

 

1. Last name.

 

2. You are a commander.

 

3. Race. You are human.

 

You even get a choice of background (along with the usual stats, sex, first name, skills, etc.) much like DA has planned (and NWN2 as well to a lesser degree).

Edited September 9, 2006 by Volourn

[Judge Hades]

Still sounds too limiting for my tastes.

[Tigranes]

alan: I think our ultimate point of difference is that you believe most people choose dialogue options based on intent and not on specific words; I would agree that most people do, but I would also argue that catering to this laziness strips away something that can sometimes really be quite beautiful. I surely don't understand how you can say a paraphrasing and the original of something can be, for all intensive purposes, equivalent. No matter how well you paraphrase something, the subtleties of the words are lost; and especially style / "coolness factor" if you will. Both because you can't see them until you've chosen (and style/etc will never be paraphrased well, now, would it?), and because I believe this system is a part of Mass Effect's direction towards simplified, straightforward dialogue.

 

Of course, Mass Effect is not Bioware's straight-course RPG offering. But then, neither was JE.

[Judge Hades]

Bioware hasn't really released a hardcore CRPG for years.

[Tigranes]

Well, I classify KOTOR as a hardcore CRPG. I don't want to, but I've learned to broaden the definition or risk sleepless nights over the Godless world we live in. :roll:

 

Anyway, the video we were linked to in page 4 is a classic example. The paraphrasing shows "Threats might." as a paraphrasing: signifying that the main character will proceed to threaten the alien bartender in some way, and he is not in the mood for jolly talking. Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that we are prepared to see him pull a gun out, and mention that 'a billion lives are at stake'. One, I would not have picked such a rash option but rather a more subtle, worded threat, and Two, what if I didn't give a jack about a billion lives? Sure, this kind of problem is also present with dialogue options, but at least I know what I'm getting into.

 

Let me clarify; these kind of things, of course, won't make or break the game. But this is certainly a needless change that has no advantages and strips away some of the beauty in RPGs.

[Judge Hades]

I don't count KotOR as a Hardcore CRPG. Its too cinematic. The last real hardcore CRPG of Bioware was Baldur's Gate 2.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Slowtrain]

Based on the ME trailer, the dialogue system does seem to lend more fludity and immersiveness to the game experience. FOr me, personally. Howevere the game is very cinematic (more so than I expected) and would seem to owe more to the FMV games of yore than to a classic crpg design. So its probably like comparing apples to oranges. I thought it worked well enough in this type of game, but I don't think that means it would work well in a FO-type crpg. Not that we'll probably ever see a FO-type crpg again, so probably the whole thign is moot.

[Judge Hades]

I just don't have a particular liking for cinematic games. I'll take a old style hardcore CRPG over games like Jade Empire and KotOR.

Edited September 9, 2006 by Judge Hades

[Slowtrain]

I'm noit a big fan of cinematic FMV-type games either, although I've palyed a few like Privateer: The Darkening which I enjoyed. I was never a big fan of the Wing COmmander games, although I tried them out from time to time.

 

On a side note, the combat interface and style seemed really arcady. Hard to judge on such a short clip, but overall the trailer did not present somethign that appelas to me very much.

 

But who knows.

[alanschu]

I surely don't understand how you can say a paraphrasing and the original of something can be, for all intensive purposes, equivalent. No matter how well you paraphrase something, the subtleties of the words are lost

 

Because as far as I'm concerned, the words are still spoken. In terms of the story itself, the character is still saying the same words regardless of which implementation you use.

 

Unless the words chosen are of extreme low quality (i.e. the nice option is "Okey d00d, I vill halp j00!" I don't think there will be ambiguity either, as I don't think we'll just have generic "Kill" responses. In the E3 preview, there was no option available that made me think "Hmmm, I wonder what that option is about." In fact, the responses still made sense given the context of the situation. In other words, the PC could have said specifically what was listed on the dial, and the context would still have made perfect sense.

 

Let me clarify; these kind of things, of course, won't make or break the game. But this is certainly a needless change that has no advantages and strips away some of the beauty in RPGs.

 

I think it has advantages. You just don't see those things as advantages. Unfortunately, the entire gaming market isn't Tigranes. I'm 100% ambivalent about the decision they made, but I can still see potential advantages.

 

And besides, as far as I can tell, this game is going to be much more of the "Action RPG" type experience, rather than the "true RPG" experience. So IMO, to hold it accountable to a game type that it's not trying to be, is silly.

 

 

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[Llyranor]

The advantages and disadvantages lie directly with the quality of the writing. If the ME clip showed good writing instead of just showing off melodramatic mumbo-jumbo, I wouldn't have minded the system at all.

[Nick_i_am]

Which really makes all it's pretty graphics count for very little.

[kalimeeri]

I foresee a lot of saving and reloading going on before conversations.

 

Hades and Tigranes are right: human communication is a combination of expression, intent, and words. Varying just one alters the character and the meaning (I think it was Hamlet who said 'one can smile and smile, and be a villain'?). Given just one to express the player's wishes for controlling the PC, the one most likely to convey the desired sentiment is the written/spoken word. Much power is hidden there.

 

I like Bioware's approach toward the importance of story. I think they are on the right track, in thinking that facial expression and body language will enhance conversations, but I also think they have oversimplified. The surprise factor is a gimmick that will lose its appeal rather quickly.

 

At least half the time, the surprises will be the bad kind; they will not be what the player intended. Yet they will certainly affect the outcome of the conversation, maybe even of the game. It might be fun to hear what Bioware thinks the PC was actually saying, but it destroys any illusion of control that the player may have.

 

(Aw, *&^#!. Save. Reload.)

 

The player will end up choosing a response by memorization, not by thinking of the possible consequences.

[Spider]

I am actually starting to see the rationale behind this. To me it seems like their goal is to have the game fully voice acted, including the PC, and from that perspective it actually makes sense.

 

I know I don't want to listen to my character say something I already know it's going to say (as if I had already read the dialogue options). As for actual implementation, there's no way of sayin it'll be good or bad until I can actually play the game (which is something may never do since I won't get a 360 anytime soon).

[Morgoth]

I hope that they just not stick with pure verbal options, but also options which will involve physical actions like grabbing someone at the collar and shake the info out of him, or throw a glass away from the bar out of fury to demand silence or maybe just stroke lovingly the face of your opposite sex for romance's sake.... But then again, ME is a Star Wars clone, so I'm not really sure whether all these things will make sense to weird aliens either.