How should PE's dialogue be presented?

[Tychoxi]

It should be a wheel with two options: a Good Chap option, and a Slightly Less of a Good Chap option. These polar opposites should of course always be placed in the same part of the circle, so that I don't need to read what I'm saying, I'll just choose "leftie" or a "rightsie".

 

 

Okay, sillyness aside, I honestly don't care so much about this, both ways can work for me. I'm more interested in my dialogue options being shaped in extreme ways by my attributes (with entire nodes being opened or closed depending on my stats for example) and there being a ****ton of skillchecks. Admitedly, this will work better in a Planescape-simile presentation because the descriptions (and their probably exclusive dialogue options) can also be utterly affected by my stats.

 

So I vote PST style, but this is not a dealbreaker.

 

 

*remembers he already said this in another poll*

*digs through his posts history*

* http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/60207-dialogue-poll/ presents a handy link*

Edited November 5, 2012 by Tychoxi

[SophosTheWise]

PS:T Style definitely. But I'd also like simple roleplaying-choices that don't have any effect. I can still think of one from Dragon Age: Origins when you enter that Dwarven Mafia ring. You have around five possibilities to insult that charta woman. No effect. Just roleplaying.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I don't have a strong preference with regard to format or presentation, but it is vital that the PC's motives or opinions are never restricted by the dialogue.

[Falkon Swiftblade]

I don't mind reading, but I'm really not wanting to be standing in the same screen space for 30 minutes at a time reading. I would prefer a system that even if there's a lot of reading the game scripts stuff in the scene so players interact with the environment. Maybe they pour themselves a drink, eats a meal, pets a horse, sharpens his weapons, etc. I just don't want to stare at a wall of text. If I wanted to read a book, I'd read a book. Make the environments interactive to some degree is all I'm asking.

Edited November 5, 2012 by Falkon Swiftblade

[The Guilty Party]

Ornate descriptions fit better in a planescape world, as the world itself has strong tinges of steampunk and victoriana and other things with ornate connotations.

 

I personally think it'd feel somewhat out of place in what I know of PE's world.

[SeekDWay]

P:T style would be best for me, I want this game to be as close to reading a good book as possible.

[Rink]

Definately Planescape: Torment- style with discriptions, as there are no ways to animate all that in this game and this non-verbal information is needed to make situations a lot more interesting.

[SGray]

You see a young girl, her stance emanating a desire to run. She looks at you with widened eyes, an expression you can only deduce fear being the culprit for; "...what do you want?"

If character with low perception would get only "You see a young girl", and with high - all of the above, and if that information is important (or somehow useful) in dialog, not solely descriptive - that would be great.

[Gibbscape_Torment]

You see a young girl, her stance emanating a desire to run. She looks at you with widened eyes, an expression you can only deduce fear being the culprit for; "...what do you want?"

If character with low perception would get only "You see a young girl", and with high - all of the above, and if that information is important (or somehow useful) in dialog, not solely descriptive - that would be great.

 

That's a really interesting proposition. I'd love to see something like that.

Edited November 6, 2012 by Gibbscape_Torment

[-Zin-]

I just completed KOTOR 2. I'm fine with non-voiced, short descriptions of texts. *This Mandalorian camp is empty and looks like it has been raided* I read faster than I listen, and I would be creeped out if there was a random man/woman I couldn't see who was narrating all the things I did.

 

I like listening to the voice of my party members though and other NPCs. That just lifts the whole story when done correctly like Obsidian usually does.

[Slaunyeh]

I'd like more descriptive text, as in Planescape: Torment. Especially if the amount of detail presented was based on, say, successful perception checks and whatnot.

 

 

Also, vaguely related to this topic, I recall a review of Planescape: Torment back when the game was released, which reached this great conclusion: "Too much conversation, not enough roleplay." To this day, that's still one of the funniest things I've ever read. I'm not sure what the reviewer consider "roleplay", but it probably involves clobbing cranium rats while sitting at your desk dressed as the Nameless One.

[AGX-17]

I don't have a strong preference with regard to format or presentation, but it is vital that the PC's motives or opinions are never restricted by the dialogue.

 

But this is a game designed by humans for today's technology and not for an unimaginable future supercomputer capable of flawlessly simulating an entire universe, so your options will always be restricted to what the designers can create.

[Slaunyeh]

I don't have a strong preference with regard to format or presentation, but it is vital that the PC's motives or opinions are never restricted by the dialogue.

 

But this is a game designed by humans for today's technology and not for an unimaginable future supercomputer capable of flawlessly simulating an entire universe, so your options will always be restricted to what the designers can create.

 

I'm not sure why today's technology would be inherently worse at this than the technology of the past. Or why technology would be a factor at all. It's not about supercomputers generating an infinite amount of content. It's about presenting dialogue as 'motives and opinions' neutral as possible. The game shouldn't go out of its' way to tell you what your motivations are for accepting a given quest. Or how you feel about something. It's a writing issue, not a technology issue.

 

I think games like Fallout 3 and F:NV manage this pretty well (at least I never felt alienated by the dialogue). On the other hand, Guild Wars 2 is a particular good example of how not to do it. And games like Mass Effect and The Old Republic goes out of their way to hammer home that you're not playing your character. You're just tagging along for the ride (admittedly, for those two games, this is a limitation of today's technology). I hope Project: Eternity will allow me to play my character, rather than letting me play a character belonging to one of the writers at Obsidian.

[freche]

Never played PS:T but I somewhat liked your example, though as other have said could be a bit better.

 

Something like:

You see a young girl, her stance emanating a desire to run. She looks at you with widened eyes, an expression you can only deduce fear being the culprit for;

 

Girl: ...what do you want?

 

1. ...

2. ...

3. ...

[Sylvius the Mad]

But this is a game designed by humans for today's technology and not for an unimaginable future supercomputer capable of flawlessly simulating an entire universe, so your options will always be restricted to what the designers can create.

My options for what I can say will be limited, but they can choose whether to limit why I say them.

 

If they specify the PC's interpretation of events for me, they've gone too far. If they tell me that the PC is telling the truth, or wants to help, or doesn't want to help, they've gone too far.

 

Dialogue options are: "Things I Can Say" That's all they are. That's all they should ever be.

[Tsuga C]

Detailed descriptions of what my PC sees are all to the good, but leave the emotional reactions within the purview of the player. Let us determine how our PC would react to input from the surroundings.

[Karkarov]

Uh both of those games present dialog in a way that is archaic and graphically not very pleasing to look at. Also planescape was so long winded it was insane, I couldn't even walk up to a random guy in a bar without having a 15 minute conversation. Meanwhile I am beginning to wonder where all this budget is going when I realized Drakensang 2 a full 3d fully voiced crpg cost less than 3.5 million to make.

 

On topic...

 

Go to the Guild Wars 2 route and maybe bring up a dialog overlay where the characters talk it out and you look at the 3d models. Maybe even go so far as the present the dialog more... concisely as well. Instead of me having to read 3 paragraphs to know what my reply options are just condense it to something that conveys meaning. Maybe by borrowing and building on the Alpha Protocol conversation system and making something a bit more robust?

[RoughOne]

Of the two, I prefer Planescape. I found the text very well done at the time (and sstill do) for the simple fact it had multiple options for the same reply:

 

1) yes.

2) yes. [lie]

3) yes [persuade]

 

etc.

 

This was a GREAT feature and led to all manner of choices and ways to ACTUALLY use CHARISMA in a game. Golly. I think that was a first. OF course using skills, one could have lying, fast talking, etc as options with examples (perhaps in combo with intelligence):

 

The guards see your actions and approach:

 

1) You pick up the unconscious body of the assassin and tell the guards he's simply has too much to drink.

2) You pretend to trip over the body and exclaim loudly, what! where did that body come from?

3) You go on about you business, nodding to the guards and move in the direction you came.

4) You scream at the body and shout how unfair it is to just die like that before you got to the bar.

 

Food for thought.

[wanderon]

Detailed descriptions of what my PC sees are all to the good, but leave the emotional reactions within the purview of the player. Let us determine how our PC would react to input from the surroundings.

 

I'm confused.... (happens all the time)

 

If they don't offer dialoge options for those emotional reactions how will they have any effect on the conversation/target? Wouldn't that just take emotions out of the conversation except in the players head?