MassMffect Q & A @ Gamespy

[Volourn]

"There was an RPG where the princess would say she loved you, and ask if you loved her back. The dialogue pop up let you pick 'yes' or 'no,' but if you picked 'no' she would just repeat, "I love you! Do you love me?"

 

I don't remember its name, but I give it the grand prize for the worst illusion of choice in a dialogue stream. "

 

Dragon Warrior 1.

[Schazzwozzer]

Hmmm, good points, I guess, but I'm envisioning ME not having any blatantly "wrong" dialogue choices in it. I could be completely wrong, of course, but that doesn't seem like a Bioware thing.

Whoa, I wasn't saying Mass Effect was going to give the player "wrong" dialogue options. In fact, I was saying that NO modern RPG is probably going to do that sort of thing anymore. There are a few PC-RPGs I've missed in recent memory, but the last game I can think of that commonly presented the player with "wrong" dialogue choices is probably Baldur's Gate II, the romance dialogues probably being the most notable example.

 

There was an RPG where the princess would say she loved you, and ask if you loved her back. The dialogue pop up let you pick 'yes' or 'no,' but if you picked 'no' she would just repeat, "I love you! Do you love me?"

 

I don't remember its name, but I give it the grand prize for the worst illusion of choice in a dialogue stream.

Hah! Japanese RPGs did (still do?) this kind of stuff ALL the time. I recall Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time, for instance, having almost exactly the sort of sequence you mentioned. But yeah, I grew up on console games, and those sort of completely false choices are so common as to be a cliche. It was like the developers were LAUGHING IN YOUR FACE every time you foolishly thought you might be able to alter the storyline.

 

Then one day I went over to my friend's house, who had a computer, and played the demo for Fallout. And I was Never the Same Again.

[Llyranor]

It was like the developers were LAUGHING IN YOUR FACE every time you foolishly thought you might be able to alter the storyline.

That's not necessarily a bad thing if properly implemented. Too bad in said examples it was just mainly serious bad design.

[Jast]

 

Background on this: A gamespy article was released a couple of days ago with 'new screenshots.' However, the BioWare employee that took them didn't use areas that were optimized, so they looked much poorer than previous screenshots. Today, Chris Priestly released a new screen shot to the forum crowd from an optimized area.

 

I'm mostly indifferent to graphics, and prefer a stylized design approach like PoP: Sands of Time and Jade Empire. Still, the textures on the guy's back look nice, they've smoothed Shepard's face, and I also like the shadows.

 

All three options look pretty much the same.

[Maria Caliban]

Abstracted dialogue.

 

That's not what he actually says; it's just the gist of it.

[mkreku]

I have a feeling that is going to confuse the hell out of me.

[Pop]

I'll either get used to it or get past it.

[Maria Caliban]

If you want to see the dialogue system 'in action' the X06 Gameplay Video has some about two and a half minutes into the video.

 

When you can talk, a little circle pops up with three to six actions. In the video I linked to, you and your teammates have just dropped on a planet where the Geth have overrun a mining facility. As they talk, three options appear:

We'll save them.

We'll try to help.

They don't matter.

 

If you pick 'We'll try to help,' then Shepherd says, "Eliminating the Geth is priority one, but keep an eye out for those miners."

 

Garis, an alien teammate, argues that helping the miners isn't part of the mission. Alison, a human teammate, responds that he's only saying that because they're human. The two begin to argue, and three options appear:

We're helping them!

I gave you an order!

He as a point.

 

Picking an option in the middle of someone else speaking causes a slightly different action on Shepard's part. If you pick 'I gave you an order!' while Garis is talking, Shepherd grabs Garis' collar and says, "I'm in charge here Garis, not you. I gave you an order and you'd damn well better follow it," then pushes him away.

 

As I understand it, when you choose to speak effects the body language and tone used by Shepherd, and NPCs may decide you're more hostile/thoughtful/strong/apathetic based on this.

Edited April 1, 2007 by Maria Caliban

[Diogo Ribeiro]

The thing that gets me the most mixed reactions in the dialogue is that it seems Bioware believes the system to be more flexibe and intuitive, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to assume that. I think it's less intuitive by virtue of imposing another layer of abstraction on the player. Whereas more traditional approaches to dialogue convey what a character is going to say from the start, Mass Effect's approach seems to be that of presenting a short option (an attitude of sorts) that leads into a more elaborate response - but the short one may not necessarily reflect the longer one.

 

I've seen that picture where JACK BAUER IN SPACE is addressing Garrus: in one screen, among the three short options there is one that reads "I gave you an order". But the outcome of selecting that carries a more abrasive and confrontational attitude not suggested in the short one. That kind of presents a schism in role-playing since the game may lead you into thinking you're going to act in a certain way - such as enforcing authority - but then act in the standard Bioware model.

 

Which, if it turns out to be true, sucks.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Fionavar

[Maria Caliban]

Role-Player:

" But the outcome of selecting that carries a more abrasive and confrontational attitude not suggested in the short one. That kind of presents a schism in role-playing since the game may lead you into thinking you're going to act in a certain way - such as enforcing authority - but then act in the standard Bioware jerk model.'

 

I don't think they're going for more intuitive as much as [buzzword]immersive and dynamic[/buzzword].

 

As I understand it:

! + [interrupt] = extreme.

 

If Shepherd hadn't interrupted Garis, there wouldn't have been that extreme Jack Bauer collar grabbing action.

 

The average player will have more than a few instances of saying, "That's not what I meant," when they see what their dialogue choice has netted them. The question is whether the overall experience is pleasant enough to make up for that discord.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Fionavar

[Pop]

So what I'm hearing is something analogous to the "swing system" that a lot of old golf games have, where you had to click your mouse / press a button at the exact right time to ensure a proper swing, and clicking too early / too late would result in a wild slice. This system seems to be like that but with dialogue. Click early, you're pissed and aggressive. Click late, and you're passive and laissez faire. Click at just the right time, and you're assertive (?) but reasonable.

 

I really could never get that swing right, and while I could see how this system could really appeal to a few, I see how it's going to be difficult for many more. Nonetheless, as always in a speculative case like this, I could be so, so wrong.

 

That having been said, I had always assumed that a fairly restrained, civil board like this not to be one in which I could be called a ****sucker in a roundabout, lazy way for liking a company, but I see that I stand corrected.

 

*edit - It's laissez faire, damnit. And it should be said that this is the internets, so if anybody wants to clumsily throw out epithets at a poorly defined group of people, that's their prerogative, and it isn't that big of a deal.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Pop

[Volourn]

"The thing that gets me the most mixed reactions in the dialogue is that it seems Bioware believes the system to be more flexibe and intuitive, but I don't think it's entirely accurate to assume that. I think it's less intuitive by virtue of imposing another layer of abstraction on the player. Whereas more traditional approaches to dialogue convey what a character is going to say from the start, Mass Effect's approach seems to be that of presenting a short option (an attitude of sorts) that leads into a more elaborate response - but the short one may not necessarily reflect the longer one."

 

That's my biggest worry with the dialogue system. i like to know what myc haracter is gonna say, or do before I decide. I'd rather not be surprised by my character's actions. Beisng surprised by npcs is cool; but not me.

 

Not much to do and wait to see how it turns out; but no doubt there is some iffies.

[Spider]

Regardless of how this system turns out (and I' wary, so very wary), I think Bioware should get some applaud for at least trying to innovate the way dialogue is handled. I'm just not sure I am going to like this particular direction very much.

 

But until I get to play it, there is just no way of telling, and given that I don't own an X-box that may never happen.

[Volourn]

Innovation can be overrated. I prefer something 'unoriginal and good' than soemthing 'original and bad'. They get no applause from me unless the system is good.

[J.E. Sawyer]

"Balance" isn't something inherent to RPGs. All games strive to have some measure of balance, whether it's in the application of one skill or another, the timing of an attack vs. its damage output, or the cost of a car modification relatively to the cost of other car modifications (and their net effect in the game). And "gameplay" is even more broad. Yes, RPGs should have good gameplay. So should action games and racing games and tactical shooters and sims and RTSs and My Little Pony: The Game. They should also have a good framerate (if they have any real-time aspect at all), because framerate is the gateway to fun. That is, it does not make the game fun, but it is the opening through which fun may emerge. If the framerate is low, the gate is small and very little fun emerges. If the framerate is high, the gate is large and much fun can come through. Of course, if the gameplay is terrible and moronic, you could run at 120 and it would still be bad.

 

Of the things that definitively make a computer game an RPG, I think that meaningful choice should be one of the most important elements, if not the most important element. Yeah yeah yeah, make no mistake -- the game has to have fantastic gameplay at a solid framerate or it's dead in the water. But when you get around to focusing on all that "RPG stuff", I think it's less important to make sure there are 5,000 suits of armor in the game or to have elves with super pointy ears or really bloody super mutant deaths than it is to give the player a lot of meaningful choices. And meaningful choice should not be conflated with freedom, as the latter is a pretty impotent term that could mean just about anything. I don't want to allow players to do anything or everything. I want to allow players to do interesting things that make them run off and say to their friends, "I DID THIS AWESOME THING IN THE GAME AND THE STUFF TURNED OUT THIS WAY AND IT WAS FUN AND I LOVE OBSIDIAN SO MUCH OH THEIR GAMES ARE PRECIOUS TREASURES."

[Cantousent]

I've been thinking about this a lot. In fact, ever since I read the blog

[Llyranor]

Now, why would a goody-two shoes like me want such an option? I

[J.E. Sawyer]

An element that is strangely absent in many RPGs is that of agony, in the olde tyme Greek sense. Choices should be difficult because each option has some potential good and bad effects that aren't just superficial. That won't necessarily mean that each player will weigh these sides similarly; in some cases, they might ignore one path of potential "bad" equally because of their personal biases. But I think it's really rare to see anything like the dilemma of Orestes. He's obliged to avenge his father, but that would mean killing his mother, which is extremely taboo. Orestes kills his mother (omg spoilz), goes crazy, and is pursued by the Furies. The alternative would have been to leave his father unavenged, the murderer walking free. We need more choices like that in games, even if they aren't on the same scale.

[Sand]

I thoroughly agree, Mr. Sawyer.

 

I hope we see that in your Black Hound module and in the Aliens CRPG.

 

If I faced that problem however I would let my father go unavenged. Never liked him.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Sand

[Schazzwozzer]

But I think it's really rare to see anything like the dilemma of Orestes. He's obliged to avenge his father, but that would mean killing his mother, which is extremely taboo. Orestes kills his mother (omg spoilz), goes crazy, and is pursued by the Furies.

Will Wright said recently, at a speech at SxSW (that dude is everywhere these days, I guess), that games can be particularly good at stirring feelings of guilt in its audience. This is as opposed to film or literature, in which we can empathize with depictions of guilt, but it's never our own. It's an interesting point, and the Orestes thing reminded me of that, what with the going crazy from guilt and all.

 

I think perhaps it's exactly these kinds of internal moral dilemnas that games will one day be able to surpass film and literature in. The catch is of course that you can't quite just write it into a script, as it has to emerge from the player's own choices.

[Gromnir]

An element that is strangely absent in many RPGs is that of agony, in the olde tyme Greek sense. Choices should be difficult because each option has some potential good and bad effects that aren't just superficial. That won't necessarily mean that each player will weigh these sides similarly; in some cases, they might ignore one path of potential "bad" equally because of their personal biases. But I think it's really rare to see anything like the dilemma of Orestes. He's obliged to avenge his father, but that would mean killing his mother, which is extremely taboo. Orestes kills his mother (omg spoilz), goes crazy, and is pursued by the Furies. The alternative would have been to leave his father unavenged, the murderer walking free. We need more choices like that in games, even if they aren't on the same scale.

 

 

preach to the choir. Gromnir have been posting for years that easy and obvious choices kills drama... but you would be surprised by how much resistance we sees. is multiple threads at DA board over at bio debating what constitutes the "darker" setting bio developers has suggested that DA would be. many people not want grim. many people not want hard choices. many.

 

take a looksee. is more than a couple threads that address moral ambiguity and heroism. Gromnir suggests that inherent in our modern notions o' heroism is sacrifice... has gotta be some willing payment for character to be genuine heroic. sadly, many peoples balk at notion o' heroic sacrifice in game. re-load means that simple abbandon o' personal safety is an illusory sacrifice, so to make Player feel sacrifice you gotta do in other ways. is unfortunate that as soon as you suggest that player might not always has a clear and beneficial game option open to them, they gets mighty worried.

 

josh and others may thinks that it is obvious that game would be better if there were costs linked to choics... makes those choices more meaningful and memorable and dramatic, but if you implement you better do so w/o telling fans ahead a time, 'cause they will whine and moan and cry as if you were trying to take their favorite toy away from 'em.

 

sometimes what will makes a game better is the opposite o' what fans ask for. you keep giving fans what they ask for and they will hate you for it, 'cause then you is unoriginal and boring. Gromnir agrees with josh on this issue if not others, but you will see more resistance than maybe you might expect. CRPG = Fantasy Fullfillment... seems to be opinion of many developers and fans. those fans and developers not eally thinks that tough choices full o' potential regret and gnashing o' teeth is appropriate material for a crpg.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps our "r" key seems to be sticking... so you notice a missed r or two and is not that we has sudden turned into vol.

Edited April 2, 2007 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

oh, and one quick aside: story is story.

 

writing a crpg character or plot is different from writing a novel or a play. given. no argument. nevertheless, we thinks that developers sometimes use differences as a crutch. what makes us admire heroes and hate villains (or vice versa) is same in all other media as is crpgs. the means o' achiving ends as a writer stays largely the same regardless o' media. tragedy and comedy and heroic sacrifice and even such stuff as extended metaphor and symbolism is having equal validity to games. harder to achive? sure, but what makes us weep or laugh or cheer in movies is gonna be same stuff that makes us laugh or cheer or weep in games.

 

should be obvious... but developers often argue opposite... they insist that addition o' gameplay and interactivity makes crpgs sooo different. rubbish. we suspect that same comments were made when moveable print finally made novels possible... would be so different than dramatic elements o' drama once you take away actors.

 

*snort*

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

whatever is in keyboard is underneath e/r... damn.

[Cantousent]

ps our "r" key seems to be sticking... so you notice a missed r or two and is not that we has sudden turned into vol.

 

Oh my goodness, that was funny.

 

I don't know whether I would really like a game I've described, but I also know that I have, for the sake of (wait, don't cringe) role-playing, I have taken options that were not beneficial to me in any way. I've had to decide whether attacking a neutral creature in world of warcraft is a bad thing to do. I decided, even though it had potential for good treasure, that my character wouldn't go out of her way to kill something just to get some loot. ...But that's the best I can do with WoW. For the medium to mature, these themes must be handled differently.

 

It's funny, the term agony has it's roots in the Greek word for struggle, from which we also get pro and antagonist. It's hard enough to get the PC and the NPCs right in a CRPG. It's apparently impossible to depict any real internal struggle, let alone evoke such a struggle in the player himself.

[Volourn]

Trolls. Gotta love 'em.

[Gromnir]

" It's apparently impossible to depict any real internal struggle, let alone evoke such a struggle in the player himself."

 

has player feel same struggle as horatius musta' faced as he stood at bridge? no, but that not mean that there ain't possibility o' meaningful sacifice.

 

take an example from bg2, 'cause we assume most here will have played. 'member in the dream sequence stuff where you is tying to save imoen? demon looking thing requires you to give up 1 attribute point to continue. is a pretty paltry sacrifice as far as heroic actions is concerned, and is not like you had an option to NOT sacrifice an attribute point... but what if you had the option? Bob the Barbarian can give up one point o' strength, or he can lets a valued party member die... permanent. even the player who is playing the Paladin is gonna pause, no?

 

obviously tougher moral dilemas, ones with no clear right v. wrong is possible in games, and the above examples shows how the developer can confont the Player with genuine sacrifice (if petty and small.) would not suggest that every such choice should be a devil v. deep blue sea situation, but even a handful would be a handful more than we has ever seen in a crpg.

 

baby steps... gotta start small. shoulda' seen what happened when we suggested that not all crpg battles should be winable.

 

HA! Good Fun!