Edge preview at next-gen.biz

[Wrath of Dagon]

Before I realized (yes I'm slow) that the renegade choices were always on the lower selection of the dialog wheel and the paragon choices the upper I couldn't figure out how my character was going to act from one conversation to the next because the summaries didn't match up to what I thought my character would do or say.

 

I say bring on the lack of summaries

That's because you need both. The same words can have different meaning depending on the tone, so the dialogue wheel is an attempt to convey both the tone and the content. Unfortunately often ME summaries were an attempt at either humor or at surprising the player with what the PC would actually say. Not necessarily a bad idea in general, but it sucked for roleplaying.

[Tigranes]

Have you played KGB?

 

That's one spy game where 99 (100?)% of player decisions can ruin the game, forcing you to reload. It sure involves careful thinking and stuff. It's also probably one of the most frustrating games I've played. Despite its flaws, it's pretty good and rewarding, but I don't think that kind of decisiveness in player actions is very marketable, nowadays.

 

I don't think Feargie wants AP to go the way of DX, regardless of its present cult status.

 

Never heard of it, but sounds intriguing. Yes, we are going downt he path of ultimate, inconsequential indulgence - a trend in all commodified experience that is reflected in this industry. Choose everything, get everything, all at once. Obsidian did seem to buck that idiocratic spiral with their games, at least a little bit, though.

 

I think it's much worse than that, this apparently has a massive dialog system which you're barely allowed to participate in. Those other games were adventure games, you couldn't make any decisions related to the narrative. DX is also different, in that you only got to choose when there was an actual decision to be made, but you knew exactly what you were going to say. ME I didn't think worked too bad, the only issues were the summaries could've been a lot more precise, and always having exactly 3 choices instead of a range got annoying.

 

Precisely. The games I quoted were games where I found that the plot, characters and setting were generally okay, but nothing I really fell in love with. So I didn't commit myself that much to the world (though I loved the gameplay of, say, Thief), and because I played it in that way I didn't mind. So if our fears turn out to be true in AP, I won't be able to love it in the way I did, say, MOTB, which is a pity.

[random n00b]

Never heard of it, but sounds intriguing.

I'm dissapointed in you, comrade!

 

Don't pass up this chance to try it. Beware lazy foot-draggerism, comrade!

 

 

Yes, we are going downt he path of ultimate, inconsequential indulgence - a trend in all commodified experience that is reflected in this industry. Choose everything, get everything, all at once. Obsidian did seem to buck that idiocratic spiral with their games, at least a little bit, though.

Haha, and it gets even better. They want to combine that with replayability value!

[flem]

Is anyone else horrified at the dialog system? You don't even get a summary of what you're going to say, all you can choose is the stance!? That's just a step away from the game randomly choosing responses for you!

 

I'm sure they have summaries or something, you'll just know which stance it is.

No, that's how ME does it (investigate options on left, paragon top right, neutral right, renegade bottom right). AP is supposed to be different -- no summaries at all.

 

I agree that this is a terrible idea.

[Tigranes]

rn: thanks - always on the lookout for great games I missed (i'd have been 4 when that came out). Will give it a try later tonight.

[Patrick K Mills]

The options are not simply "mean" "happy" and "sexy."

 

While I have a fondness for those labels, as they are personally my only three moods, we do short descriptions for each stance option, and sometimes give explicit details in the title. They aren't specific lines of dialog, though.

 

Think something like this:

 

Aggressive = Force his hand = "Hey bad guy, I know you are bluffing, blah blah blah."

Suave = Flirt = "What's a bad guy like you doing in a sewer level like this blah blah blah."

Professional = Offer him a deal = "I'll pay you $300 to forget that I reloaded my game so I could try the flirt option."

 

And so on. While you may see the words Aggressive, Suave, and Professional in the dialog sequences, most of the time you'll see descriptions that are written specifically for that line of dialog.

[Xard]

Aren't we also supposed to be able to change our stance midway through convo? And I don't just mean obvious crossing points.

 

"What's a bad guy like you doing in a sewer level like this blah blah blah."

 

Oh dear, someone might sig that

[Jorian Drake]

i like the third variant better

[flem]

The options are not simply "mean" "happy" and "sexy."

 

While I have a fondness for those labels, as they are personally my only three moods, we do short descriptions for each stance option, and sometimes give explicit details in the title. They aren't specific lines of dialog, though.

 

Think something like this:

 

Aggressive = Force his hand = "Hey bad guy, I know you are bluffing, blah blah blah."

Suave = Flirt = "What's a bad guy like you doing in a sewer level like this blah blah blah."

Professional = Offer him a deal = "I'll pay you $300 to forget that I reloaded my game so I could try the flirt option."

 

And so on. While you may see the words Aggressive, Suave, and Professional in the dialog sequences, most of the time you'll see descriptions that are written specifically for that line of dialog.

OK, so it is more like ME. That's OK. There really is a minimum level of info that you need to make a choice, and the stance name doesn't get there.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Patrick, you just restored my faith in Obsidian. Those so-called journalists really need to be more careful about phrasing things. (Walks off whistling a happy tune.)

[Musopticon?]

Patrick, you just restored my faith in Obsidian. Those so-called journalists really need to be more careful about phrasing things. (Walks off whistling a happy tune.)

There goes true nitpicking. See you around!

[fastpunk]

Think something like this:

 

Aggressive = Force his hand = "Hey bad guy, I know you are bluffing, blah blah blah."

Suave = Flirt = "What's a bad guy like you doing in a sewer level like this blah blah blah."

Professional = Offer him a deal = "I'll pay you $300 to forget that I reloaded my game so I could try the flirt option."

 

And so on. While you may see the words Aggressive, Suave, and Professional in the dialog sequences, most of the time you'll see descriptions that are written specifically for that line of dialog.

 

This sounds good. Coupled with what the next-gen.biz article also mentioned (time limits for responses) this could turn out to be interesting. But won't changing stances multiple times throughout a conversation make dialogs feel disjointed? I mean, one minute you're aggressive, the other you're suave...

 

All things considered, the dialog system is better than I imagined it, although it still sounds like some sort of mini-game.

[Wrath of Dagon]

I don't see why, depending on how a conversation is going, you might want to change your stance. Like if you see your threats are working, you may want to back off a little, or if your professionalism isn't working, it may be time to switch to threats. Also if you feel it makes more sense to keep the same stance, you can do that too. They said it's going to be similar to solving a puzzle, so that actually might work pretty great, the gameplay might be really conversation focused for once.

[Tigranes]

Yeah, but I think what he means is, because there are often only a limited number of answers, the game may not be able to pick up on that. e.g. there is only one 'Aggressive' option in a given situation: it doesn't really distinguish whether you are stepping up, having previously pretended to be meek, or you're still going full force - something that, in a traditional BIS/OE system, is accomplished with simple turns of phrase.

 

I feel that like Mass Effect, you are usually going to be able to get the general result you want and say the general things you want, but subtlety and inflections suffer from this change of system. It's just a pay-off thing: they must have decided that in context of the game they want to make, they can accept this in return for what I suppose might seem a more visceral and cinematic experience. I never really felt that way, but that's probably just me.

[Wrath of Dagon]

It's rare for the dialog system to really support nuanced responses. Usually similar responses just lead down the same path in the dialog tree. Also you usually only get a good and a bad option, with sometimes a neutral, so this won't be much different. I agree though it would be nice to have a variable number of options, instead of always having three, that will start feeling a bit artificial.

[Bos_hybrid]

It's rare for the dialog system to really support nuanced responses. Usually similar responses just lead down the same path in the dialog tree. Also you usually only get a good and a bad option, with sometimes a neutral, so this won't be much different. I agree though it would be nice to have a variable number of options, instead of always having three, that will start feeling a bit artificial.

 

I feel that like Mass Effect, you are usually going to be able to get the general result you want and say the general things you want, but subtlety and inflections suffer from this change of system. It's just a pay-off thing: they must have decided that in context of the game they want to make, they can accept this in return for what I suppose might seem a more

visceral and cinematic experience. I never really felt that way, but that's probably just me.

 

But why is more than three needed if there are only three outcomes?

 

Its always this:

_______________________________________________________

Information seeking - - Conversation Good/Paragon

- Conversation Neutral

- Conversation Evil/Renegade

_______________________________________________________

Because there are only 4 useful things in this conversation, anything else would be fluff leading to the same path eventually. Maybe they could of had five or six choices, but in the end they would of been superficial, and when you are using a voiced PC that's a waste of limited resources.

 

I look at ME in the same way as I look at BG. ME was the beginning, getting used to the engine, understanding it capabilities getting the story and the characters set, basically getting everything in place and working. Then release BG2 (ME 2) tons more dialogue, better quests, a more enjoyable game(IMO). Another thing too look at, is the difference between NWN2:OC and MotB:OC while I did enjoy the NWN2 OC MotBs was a lot better. (again IMO)

 

Back on topic, the dialogue of AP seems good, but my opinion of it would go up if it was like:

 

depending on how a conversation is going, you might want to change your stance. Like if you see your threats are working, you may want to back off a little, or if your professionalism isn't working, it may be time to switch to threats. Also if you feel it makes more sense to keep the same stance, you can do that too. They said it's going to be similar to solving a puzzle, so that actually might work pretty great, the gameplay might be really conversation focused for once.

 

However I imagine this would be hard to implement throughout a whole game. Perhaps it could be used in interrogation sequences, plot critical moments etc, but doing it throughout the whole game? That would be a lot of work.

[Tigranes]

It's rare for the dialog system to really support nuanced responses. Usually similar responses just lead down the same path in the dialog tree

 

True, but at least you could see yourself saying such nuanced lines. That itself is a source of satisfaction.

 

Because there are only 4 useful things in this conversation, anything else would be fluff leading to the same path eventually. Maybe they could of had five or six choices, but in the end they would of been superficial, and when you are using a voiced PC that's a waste of limited resources.

 

You're right. But do we really want such an instrumental approach to dialogue? I mean, why not just do Morrowind Encyclopaedias? That kind of 'fluff' you talk about, I think, helps imagination/immersion, can be enjoyable all on their own (rather like silly lines from movies that make it into pop culture), and so forth. The only reason I can see *not* to have them is... well... so you don'th ave to voice so many lines. Now we can see why voicing everything may not be the best thing in the world.

[Bos_hybrid]

You're right. But do we really want such an instrumental approach to dialogue? I mean, why not just do Morrowind Encyclopaedias? That kind of 'fluff' you talk about, I think, helps imagination/immersion, can be enjoyable all on their own (rather like silly lines from movies that make it into pop culture), and so forth.The only reason I can see *not* to have them is... well... so you don'th ave to voice so many lines. Now we can see why voicing everything may not be the best thing in the world.

 

In a game like ME where the PC has VO, its the only practical choice, maybe they can do more later on in the trilogy. ME is a game where they are purposely focusing on the cinematic style, for better or worse. Its an experiment in immersion and I'm guessing your not in favour of it. But don't think all Bioware next games will have this, DA won't and that's their next release.

 

Personally I enjoy both, but I think for CRPG having PC VO is detrimental to role-playing for the moment.

[Wrath of Dagon]

Even adding some lines which lead to the same outcome would add to the illusion that you have more choice. Also why not implement it so that you have variable number of real choices, sometimes 2, sometime 4, depending on the situation? Anyway, I don't think it's a huge deal and we'll have to see how it actually works. As far as a voiced PC, if you can see and hear you character speak, to me it creates another character I can relate to. With a silent PC I just have a feeling I'm playing as myself. Nothing necessarily wrong with either one, they both have their advantages and disadvantages, overall I prefer a voiced PC though.