Please no Real-time conversations. Ever.

[dal]

Alpha Protocol was enough

[C2B]

Probably not for Eternity, except *special* ones.

 

Alpha Protocol's timed conversations are awesome though. It gave an impact, and had me make a decision depending on how I figured the opponent to be (and there's nothing more gratifing manipulating the opponent, not just click on the *win* skill dialog). It gave Avellone-Style conversation battles quite the meaning

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[dal]

Its against basic rule of RPG: my player character acts, not me. My english not good enough even to read real-time conversations. But my player character have no problem with that. So it good for arcade, not for RPG game.

Edited October 19, 2012 by dal

[DocDoomII]

Well the truth is that YOU are roleplaying your character.

Though in Alpha Protocol some dialogue were actually too fast to read all the options.

[AwesomeOcelot]

Does time limits or stupidly short dialogue responses improve conversation game play? No, it makes it terrible. Which games have the best dialogue and conversation gameplay? Fallout and VtM: Bloodlines, followed by Fallout 2 and Fallout: New Vegas. Dialogue which had way more impact on me than games that employ this system like Alpha Protocol, Dreamfall: The Longest Journey, or Mass Effect.

 

It's terrible game design. Because there's no time to read meaningful choices you're given vague phrases or even single words that don't reflect the response you'd want to give. It's the type of decision of game designers that don't want to be developing games, they want to be designing animated movies with relatively bad graphics that sometimes involve some interactivity. They say "we want conversations to flow like real life", but that's the anti-thesis to good game design, where we have conventions that are deliberately not like real life because we want to play games that are fun, challenging, involve interacting and choice.

 

These systems feel like mini-games, not quite as bad as Bethesda mini-games, relevantly the Oblivion social mini-game, but in general pretty bad. They don't seem to have any relation to what you're actually doing. Yes, you get the "flow" of the conversation, at the expense of every thing else about a conversation. Lets have quick time events as well as the NPC is talking, that will make us concentrate more.

 

The only reason why these systems exist is because they are a compromise for consoles, where a lot of gamers don't want to read more than a few words a minute. If these games hadn't have been developed for consoles then we wouldn't have had these terrible systems. Yet we are told to eat ****, it tastes good, and some people say "mmmmm yes, more please", these are the people who liked Oblivion and Skyrim, who didn't like dialogue in the first place, didn't care for the game play involved.

Edited October 19, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[C2B]

Its against basic rule of RPG: player character acts, not me. My english not good enough even to read real-time conversations. But my player character have no problem with that. So it good for arcade, not for RPG game.

 

Yeah, no.

 

I usually don't conversate and wait around for two minutes before I say something. I don't think my player charachter would either. (Or any sane human being)

 

@DocDoomII Never had that problem, though I read very, very fast so I'm probably not the best sample.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[C2B]

but that's the anti-thesis to good game design, where we have conventions that are deliberately not like real life because we want to play games that are fun, challenging, involve interacting and choice.

 

How is having endless time to think up an answer challenging at all? How does it benefit the interaction?

 

If I have limited time (though AP's were quite short, I agree) finding out the personality of your opponent and reacting according to it gets fun (for me). Especially where there are no real *wrong* answers, just consequences like in AP.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[C2B]

Also, I'm not saying they should do that in P:E. No, it benefits certain kinds of games more, others less.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

but that's the anti-thesis to good game design, where we have conventions that are deliberately not like real life because we want to play games that are fun, challenging, involve interacting and choice.

 

How is having endless time to think up an answer challenging at all? How does it benefit the interaction?

 

If I have limited time (though AP's were quite short, I agree) finding out the personality of your opponent and reacting according to it gets fun (for me). Especially where there are no real *wrong* answers, just consequences like in AP.

 

I don't want a challenging mini-game that's completely bull****. The short one-word or phrase doesn't reflect forming a response in a conversation. If you don't know what your choices are they're not choices, I might as well just pick randomly. It benefits the interaction because you can have more options, where you can choose full responses that you know before you choose them. I want to play games, not be played by games, and that's what these stupid dialogue systems feel like, they feel like quick time events and stupid mini-games.

 

Anyone that's ever played a good RPG can see the difference to these RPGs, and how this system is lacking compared to older games.

Edited October 19, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Cultist]

It is also a blessing that isometric view has no place for Quick-Time Events. Oh, the horror.

[dal]

Its against basic rule of RPG: player character acts, not me. My english not good enough even to read real-time conversations. But my player character have no problem with that. So it good for arcade, not for RPG game.

 

Yeah, no.

 

I usually don't conversate and wait around for two minutes before I say something. I don't think my player charachter would either. (Or any sane human being)

 

@DocDoomII Never had that problem, though I read very, very fast so I'm probably not the best sample.

OK I say it again: RPG depens on my player character actions, intelligence, reactions, etc. not mine. Or I can roleplay only myself. And its not IMHO.

[C2B]

but that's the anti-thesis to good game design, where we have conventions that are deliberately not like real life because we want to play games that are fun, challenging, involve interacting and choice.

 

How is having endless time to think up an answer challenging at all? How does it benefit the interaction?

 

If I have limited time (though AP's were quite short, I agree) finding out the personality of your opponent and reacting according to it gets fun (for me). Especially where there are no real *wrong* answers, just consequences like in AP.

 

I don't want a challenging mini-game that's completely bull****. The short one-word or phrase doesn't reflect forming a response in a conversation. If you don't know what your choices are they're not choices, I might as well just pick randomly. It benefits the interaction because you can have more options, where you can choose full responses that you know before you choose them. I want to play games, not be played by games, and that's what these stupid dialogue systems feel like, they feel like quick time events and stupid mini-games.

 

And that's what I vehemently disagree with. They are still choices. The consequences are something you or your player charachter don't know at any given point in time. It's something you figure out.

 

For example Marburg, and the famous *he duels you because you got to him*. During my playthrough I noticed (in conversation and dossier) , that he seems to see in you himself as a younger man. Something he failed to come out of at the time. Now, I got to him, by way of smugness, showing him that all the things he handled so poorly in his past are *easy* for me (Even if it is just played). Causing him to go into a rage and attack me.

 

Sorry, that moment hold more power to me than the majority of conversations in rpgs provided. It's awesome for me, because I actually interacted with a personality. Not just drivel and skill *win* marked conversation options.

 

That's my stance on it. Take it as you will. If you only see the bad things, your choice.

[C2B]

OK I say it again: RPG depens on my player character actions, intelligence, reactions, etc. not mine. Or I can roleplay only myself. And its not IMHO.

 

It's both. I agree though, that a charachter's abilities should stand above all else. If he cannot do it, neither can I (Locked out dialog options and so on). However at the point where he can do it, player skill comes still into play.

 

For example, how you choose to do battle, what dialog option you employ and so on.

 

In AP we play a super spy. Conversanal ability is a given.

 

Also tip: *What is a CRPG* is a difficult question.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

 

but that's the anti-thesis to good game design, where we have conventions that are deliberately not like real life because we want to play games that are fun, challenging, involve interacting and choice.

 

How is having endless time to think up an answer challenging at all? How does it benefit the interaction?

 

If I have limited time (though AP's were quite short, I agree) finding out the personality of your opponent and reacting according to it gets fun (for me). Especially where there are no real *wrong* answers, just consequences like in AP.

 

I don't want a challenging mini-game that's completely bull****. The short one-word or phrase doesn't reflect forming a response in a conversation. If you don't know what your choices are they're not choices, I might as well just pick randomly. It benefits the interaction because you can have more options, where you can choose full responses that you know before you choose them. I want to play games, not be played by games, and that's what these stupid dialogue systems feel like, they feel like quick time events and stupid mini-games.

 

 

 

And that's what I vehemently disagree with. They are still choices. The consequences are something you or your player charachter don't know at any given point in time. It's something you figure out.

 

For example Marburg, and the famous *he duels you because you got to him*. During my playthrough I noticed (in conversation and dossier) , that he seems to see in you himself as a younger man. Something he failed to come out of at the time. Now, I got to him, by way of smugness, showing him that all the things he handled so poorly in his past are *easy* for me (Even if it is just played). Causing him to go into a rage and attack me.

 

Sorry, that moment hold more power to me than the majority of conversations in rpgs provided. It's awesome for me, because I actually interacted with a personality. Not just drivel and skill *win* marked conversation options.

 

That's my stance on it. Take it as you will. If you only see the bad things, your choice.

 

What part of that can't be in the good conversation systems of RPGs? And also, wow that sounds like great conversation game play, be smug and get someone to attack you. That's never happened in an RPG before. Revolutionary!

Edited October 19, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[C2B]

What part of that can't be in the good conversation systems of RPGs? And also, wow that sounds like great conversation game play, be smug and get someone to attack you. That's never happened in an RPG before. Revolutionary!

 

Yeah, sure. Ignore the rest of the post why dont'ya.

 

Just, depending on how I played on that part of his personality, different things happened. Including him reconsidering and finally leaving Halbech.

 

Our conversation is over.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

Just, depending on how I played on that part of his personality, different things happened. Including him reconsidering and finally leaving Halbech.

 

Wow never seen that in a good conversation system, saying different things gets different responses.

[rjshae]

What part of that can't be in the good conversation systems of RPGs? And also, wow that sounds like great conversation game play, be smug and get someone to attack you. That's never happened in an RPG before. Revolutionary!

 

Yeah, sure. Ignore the rest of the post why dont'ya.

 

Just, depending on how I played on that part of his personality, different things happened. Including him reconsidering and finally leaving Halbech.

 

Our conversation is over.

Was that a real-time conversation?

[dal]

However at the point where he can do it, player skill comes still into play.

So if I'm not agile enough I can't roleplay rogue? I can't agree.

[harhar!]

I like in in actionoriented games like "The walking Dead" but not in Rpgs with philosophical questions (like Ps:T) where I sometimes take 10 minutes to form my opinion on a specific matter.

[Infinitron]

How about conversations that aren't in real-time, but the world outside the conversations continues to progress in real-time while you're in them?

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[C2B]

How about conversations that aren't in real-time, but the world outside the conversations continues to progress in real-time while you're in them?

 

That should be the standard in any conversation system, imo.

 

@harhar As I said (like, right at the beginning and repeated in the middle), I don't think P:E should have it (except if a certain situation would be in, where it fit). I just don't see it as the devil.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[JohanKris]

Its against basic rule of RPG: my player character acts, not me. My english not good enough even to read real-time conversations. But my player character have no problem with that. So it good for arcade, not for RPG game.

 

Actually, if this really is the case I think it would be more in the line of having choices like

- Retort angrily

- Try to manipulate (wisdom/skill)

- Agree with him

- Intimidate (skill)

 

then you can choose what really fits his personality. (this often might have the problem were above descriptions end up with lines that just feels far away from what you expected)

 

Because when exact words are written out it often ends up with you choosing what you think is the best answer and it is again about you, not the character. Unless the writers have a uncanny ability to come up with conversation options that really don't convey which choice is better.

 

Otherwise I agree with you, timed conversations don't fit into this game.

[Kennyrules]

If it's based off IWD and BG, then I'm good. I enjoyed how those conversations worked.

[Infinitron]

OP:

 

Alpha Protocol used timed conversations because it was trying to emulate a cinematic style befitting its console-style, cutscene heavy, third person perspective presentation.

 

You have nothing to worry about.

Edited October 19, 2012 by Infinitron

[C2B]

If it's based off IWD and BG, then I'm good. I enjoyed how those conversations worked.

 

From what I heard it's similiar. Though, they try to remove the *follow these options to win* mentality. As I understand it by using different conversation paths in certain conversations.