Please no Real-time conversations. Ever.

[C2B]

Alpha Protocol used timed conversations because it was trying to emulate a cinematic style

 

One reason, the other was spy rpg and there was a third one I don't remember. (Mitsoda designed it. Did he ever answer why exactly?)

 

Though, the simple paraphrases were completly console style (and my greatest critisism about the system. They're hideous and you can't read the answer out of them. Come to think of it, I may have given the impression I liked them. I do not. I like the timed factor, *stance system* (though it could be immesly improved) and conversation paths. I think Avellone said somewhere they would have liked to present the options differently. Them being so short was probably also responsible for the short answer time.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[Falkon Swiftblade]

OP I've never played AP, but have you ever played any of the Uncharted games or Diablo 3? I would like more of those types of encounters in game so I can still adventure while getting exposition without having to stand still for 15 minutes clicking next, next, next, to advance. I'd also like some contextual dialog so I can respond angry, or cautiously, etc depending on language or speech skills.

[Althernai]

I just don't see conversation quick-time events in a game with the kind of dialog in Baldur's Gate 2 or Planescape: Torment. They work when the conversation is simplified roughly to the point of Mass Effect, but they'd be ridiculous when you have 5 or more full sentence choices.

 

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?

How would you make the interface handle this? Should the player be able to interrupt the conversation and come back later if something in the background requires immediate attention? Also, it's kind of pointless given that the game is real time with pause.

[C2B]

How would you make the interface handle this? Should the player be able to interrupt the conversation and come back later if something in the background requires immediate attention?

 

That's a question of design though. You shouldn't be able to converse (at least not in a casual manner) while things are trying to kill you.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

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.

 

That's the worst consequence of having a time limited system. When I play it's the exact opposite, not having exact words means I choose the best option, and having the exact words allows role play if there's enough options. I don't think conversation can be represented in: angry, manipulate, agree, intimidate, that doesn't respect dialogue at all.

[Infinitron]

How would you make the interface handle this?

 

You wouldn't have to implement any special interface. My post was kind of a joke - many of the conversations in the Infinity Engine games already worked this way. It's nothing new.

[Uomoz]

AP-like timed conversations could be interesting when the character is in a pinch and there's not much time to talk (like a quick reply while the cave is falling down).

[Malkaven]

It was done in Witcher 2 tastefully imo. Certain options of the conversation were timed sometimes. Typically it was a response that was meant to interrupt or to say something witty to the speaker.

 

If PE can do it tastefully I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if they didn't include it either.

[Jozape]

Probably not for Eternity, except *special* ones.

 

Real-time conversations are definitely not for Project Eternity, and I would only tolerate real-time conversations if I could pause. My reaction-time and ability to decode the dialog wheel should never be relevant in my character's decision making process.

 

Alpha Protocol's timed conversations are awesome though.

 

They are awful. They are the reason I cannot bring myself to play Alpha Protocol.

 

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

 

What do you mean by impact? You don't need real-time and/or stop-watched conversations to make a decision depending on how you 'figure the opponent to be'.

 

Well the truth is that YOU are roleplaying your character.

 

You role-play your character, but you are not your character. If you were your character, you would be just as strong or weak and fast or slow as him or her. That's demonstrably not true.

 

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

 

Precisely.

 

I usually don't conversate and wait around for two minutes before I say something.

 

That you don't usually wait around for two minutes before you say something doesn't mean that you can't. I can stand in front of someone and not say anything to them for hours. Granted, most people will say something in the interim, or just walk away, but there is no law of the universe requiring me to thoughtlessly blurt out a sentence or sentences that I never intended to say.

 

And the solution to the NPC's lack of reaction is to build reaction into the NPC, not the PC.

 

I don't think my player charachter would either. (Or any sane human being)

 

So don't wait around for two minutes before you say something. Problem solved.

 

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

 

How does the player having limited time to choose the character's action benefit the interaction? I am not my character, therefor, my ability should not affect the outcome my character's actions.

[C2B]

It was done in Witcher 2 tastefully imo. Certain options of the conversation were timed sometimes. Typically it was a response that was meant to interrupt or to say something witty to the speaker.

 

If PE can do it tastefully I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if they didn't include it either.

 

Yeah, I liked how W2 did it too.

[AwesomeOcelot]

It was done in Witcher 2 tastefully imo. Certain options of the conversation were timed sometimes. Typically it was a response that was meant to interrupt or to say something witty to the speaker.

 

If PE can do it tastefully I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if they didn't include it either.

 

Now that actually makes sense for some games like The Witcher 2, action RPGs and FPS with RPG elements like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, interrupts over NPC spoken dialogue make a lot of sense.

[C2B]

It was done in Witcher 2 tastefully imo. Certain options of the conversation were timed sometimes. Typically it was a response that was meant to interrupt or to say something witty to the speaker.

 

If PE can do it tastefully I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if they didn't include it either.

 

Now that actually makes sense for some games like The Witcher 2, action RPGs and FPS with RPG elements like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, interrupts over NPC spoken dialogue make a lot of sense.

 

Wait what?

 

That's exactly what I'm arguing for.

 

AP was a (bad) FPS with RPG elements too. And AP's conversational system wasn't without flaws as I mentioned in a previous post.

 

Edit: Overall I actually prefer the way DE:HR did it.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

It was done in Witcher 2 tastefully imo. Certain options of the conversation were timed sometimes. Typically it was a response that was meant to interrupt or to say something witty to the speaker.

 

If PE can do it tastefully I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't mind if they didn't include it either.

 

Now that actually makes sense for some games like The Witcher 2, action RPGs and FPS with RPG elements like Deus Ex: Human Revolution, interrupts over NPC spoken dialogue make a lot of sense.

 

Wait what?

 

That's exactly what I'm arguing for.

 

AP was a (bad) FPS with RPG elements too. And AP's conversational system wasn't without flaws as I mentioned in a previous post.

 

Edit: Overall I actually prefer the way DE:HR did it.

 

You didn't mention interrupts over NPC dialogue at all, and I know that Alpha Protocol's system isn't that.

Edited October 19, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[Malcador]

OP I've never played AP, but have you ever played any of the Uncharted games or Diablo 3? I would like more of those types of encounters in game so I can still adventure while getting exposition without having to stand still for 15 minutes clicking next, next, next, to advance. I'd also like some contextual dialog so I can respond angry, or cautiously, etc depending on language or speech skills.

 

Well those are two games I'd never expect them to draw things from.

[Hoverdog]

OP I've never played AP, but have you ever played any of the Uncharted games or Diablo 3? I would like more of those types of encounters in game so I can still adventure while getting exposition without having to stand still for 15 minutes clicking next, next, next, to advance. I'd also like some contextual dialog so I can respond angry, or cautiously, etc depending on language or speech skills.

I'm not sure you're in the right place. console cancer is that way ->

[C2B]

You didn't mention interrupts over NPC dialogue at all, and I know that Alpha Protocol's system isn't that.

 

Yup, my bad. Though, I was more refering to DE:HR where it has both when utilized. (And a lot more that I want in similiar games)

 

DE:HR is pretty great in regards to a dialog system. I still think it could be improved, but it's awesome for its type of game.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

You didn't mention interrupts over NPC dialogue at all, and I know that Alpha Protocol's system isn't that.

 

Yup, my bad. Though, I was more refering to DE:HR where it has both when utilized. (And a lot more that I want in similiar games)

 

DE:HR is pretty great in regards to a dialog system. I still think it could be improved, but it's awesome for its type of game.

 

I loved the DE:HR system, it fit the game and the franchise well, where you're playing Adam, it doesn't have a time limit and the responses are in full if you want them to be.

Edited October 19, 2012 by AwesomeOcelot

[C2B]

You didn't mention interrupts over NPC dialogue at all, and I know that Alpha Protocol's system isn't that.

 

Yup, my bad. Though, I was more refering to DE:HR where it has both when utilized. (And a lot more that I want in similiar games)

 

DE:HR is pretty great in regards to a dialog system. I still think it could be improved, but it's awesome for its type of game.

 

I loved the DE:HR system, it fit the game and the franchise well, it doesn't have a time limit and the responses are in full if you want them to be.

 

Another thing, you might have misunderstood what I was saying (And looking back that was probably my fault). I don't want timed in all conversations either, especially casual ones. Timed is good when it fits, like in HR when you're dealing with someone on the edge.

 

That's also why I'm so disappointed in the boss battles of the main game.

 

Edit: (If the question comes up: AP was only sparsely casual and most of that weren't really conversations. Though there are 2-3 instances where it REALLY didn't fit.)

 

Edit2: Also I'm using casual here wrong, as I encompass some other conversation types into that as well.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[AwesomeOcelot]

You didn't mention interrupts over NPC dialogue at all, and I know that Alpha Protocol's system isn't that.

 

Yup, my bad. Though, I was more refering to DE:HR where it has both when utilized. (And a lot more that I want in similiar games)

 

DE:HR is pretty great in regards to a dialog system. I still think it could be improved, but it's awesome for its type of game.

 

I loved the DE:HR system, it fit the game and the franchise well, it doesn't have a time limit and the responses are in full if you want them to be.

 

Another thing, you might have misunderstood what I was saying (And looking back that was probably my fault). I don't want timed in all conversations either, especially casual ones. Timed is good when it fits, like in HR when you're dealing with someone on the edge.

 

That's also why I'm so disappointed in the boss battles of the main game.

 

Edit: (If the question comes up: AP was only sparsely casual and most of that weren't really conversations. Though there are 2-3 instances where it REALLY didn't fit.)

 

Edit2: Also I'm using casual here wrong, as I encompass some other conversation types into that as well.

 

The reason I didn't mind the time limits in DE:HR was that there were very few instances of it, and I never encountered them anyway because they're long enough that I was able to read the responses in full and decide what I wanted. Also pheromones.

[anubite]

BG can give up to 20-30 possible responses for you to make, a couple of times during the game's life. I think Torment gave at least half as many options at once.

 

Timed reponses are not conducive to that. So, no thanks. Let's bring back complexity to dialogue choices. None of this "top, middle, bottom" choices shoved down our throats by BW.

[C2B]

The reason I didn't mind the time limits in DE:HR was that there were very few instances of it, and I never encountered them anyway because they're long enough that I was able to read the responses in full and decide what I wanted.

 

Yes, and that's good design, IMO. Both of these are something you should absolutly be able to do before doing the action. (Which wasn't the case in AP)

 

Anyway, I'm glad the misunderstanding was cleared up, and I think I stated my opinion (Which you may disagree with)(The only reason I posted in here, was because of the black and white tone of the OP post/title.). Now, to work.

[C2B]

Let's bring back complexity to dialogue choices. None of this "top, middle, bottom" choices shoved down our throats by BW.

 

Agree with that part at least. How conversations have been presented in many recent titles has been terrible to say the least.

Edited October 19, 2012 by C2B

[GhostofAnakin]

I thought the conversation system worked well for a game like Alpha Protocol because it was supposed to be an on-the-edge-of-your-seat spy thriller, where quick thinking and quick words were needed to navigate through interactions with others.

 

But I'm not sure it would work as well in a game like Project Eternity. While decisions are obviously important, I don't think the game will be as geared toward having to make split-second decisions on what to say, and thus, no need for a conversation system that's got a sort of time limit attached to it.

[Shadenuat]

Real-time conversations in AP were fake as nothing happened outside of them, and created fake sense of urgency.

 

Also, I like to play RPG's with blanket on and a cup of hot chocolate in my hand.

[The Guilty Party]

I enjoyed Alpha Protocol and its conversations, so you know. Disagree.

 

Although why you're worrying about this in a text-based game, I have no idea.