Just musing over a point that I've noticed while playing PST recently.

 

I've played a lot of IE games and installed various mods as well.  Different writers use a different style to accomodate describing actions / other narrative as part of the dialogue.

Some use (parentheses), some use *asterisks*, some use traditional "speech in quotes".

Just wondering how you prefer it to be handled.

 

Examples:

 

You'll have to pay for that! (her eyes dart between your party members, trying to keep you all in sight)

1. Ok, we'll pay

2. (Attack her)

3. (Run away)

 

You'll have to pay for that! *her eyes dart between your party members, trying to keep you all in sight*

1. Ok, we'll pay

2. *Attack her*

3. *Run away*

 

"You'll have to pay for that!" her eyes dart between your party members, trying to keep you all in sight.

1. "Ok, we'll pay"

2. Attack her

3. Run away

 

You'll have to pay for that! her eyes dart between your party members, trying to keep you all in sight

1. Ok, we'll pay

2. Attack her

3. Run away

 

Or is there a better way?

The last is an abomination. Kill it NOW!

The rest i have no problem with, even if my personal preference is the novel approach or maybe the * *

The quotes make the most sense.  There is no reason to highly "run away / attack her" in any way in game though.  It is fairly obvious those aren't dialog options and what they are going to result in.

I prefer the novel style in the body text. For the choices themselves I think *'s or ()'s work better to delinate between an action and converstation pieces. Italics also work.

I don't mind either style as long as there is a logic to the presentation of the choices, meaning that I get what I choose not a different line of dialog (e.g: ME, DA2) 

I definitely prefer the traditional novel style, but the only example there that would actually bother me is the different colors. 

Personal preference is irrelevant to me. As long as they are consistent and play to their strengths.

 

Though I have a particular aversion to asterisks.

Novel style, please.

Quotes for character speech, and parentheses for character actions, methinks, with meta-game text (like interface tooltips or description of mechanics) using neither.

Edited August 10, 201312 yr by mcmanusaur

I like the novel style the best, but the descriptive/action text should have something unique, too, like maybe italics or something.

I like asterisks.

 

...but in a game environment, I don't really care much, as long as the grammar use or an overuse of tortured slang/cliched sayings/colloquialisms don't make my eyes bleed.

The last is an abomination. Kill it NOW!

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought that (but I had to include it in the poll anyway)

 

I'm torn between liking novel-style and liking parantheses (perhaps because many BG-mods used parentheses).

 

I guess I don't really mind as long as it's consistent.

im fine with anything... but you forgot these [ ]

The issue with pure narrative style for me is that it doesn't feel like a character's actions should be narrated in first person or third person, unless that narration is present through the whole game.

The issue with pure narrative style for me is that it doesn't feel like a character's actions should be narrated in first person or third person, unless that narration is present through the whole game.

I kinda feel that way sometimes. That weird in-between world of novel and film, fitting neither. Or something.

 

I'd probably prefer a method more like:

 

The woman approaches, glancing aggressively around at you and your party as she speaks:

"You'll have to pay for that!"

 

1. Ok, we'll pay

2. (Attack her)

3. (Run away)

 

....mostly because it feels like a more natural reading rhythm than a dialogue-line followed by separated [ action ] text. (edit) I refer to the set up line - the 1,2,3 choices don't matter to me since I consider them the given player options.

The issue with pure narrative style for me is that it doesn't feel like a character's actions should be narrated in first person or third person, unless that narration is present through the whole game.

Worked for me in Torment.

 

The issue with pure narrative style for me is that it doesn't feel like a character's actions should be narrated in first person or third person, unless that narration is present through the whole game.

I kinda feel that way sometimes. That weird in-between world of novel and film, fitting neither. Or something.

 

I'd probably prefer a method more like:

 

The woman approaches, glancing aggressively around at you and your party as she speaks:

"You'll have to pay for that!"

 

1. Ok, we'll pay

2. (Attack her)

3. (Run away)

 

....mostly because it feels like a more natural reading rhythm than a dialogue-line followed by separated [ action ] text. (edit) I refer to the set up line - the 1,2,3 choices don't matter to me since I consider them the given player options.

 

 

 

The issue with pure narrative style for me is that it doesn't feel like a character's actions should be narrated in first person or third person, unless that narration is present through the whole game.

Worked for me in Torment.

 

Yeah, I was actually specifically referring to the dialogue options, rather than the narration of other characters' speech and action, which I do believe can be handled with third person in the manner that LadyCrimson suggests. I guess that actually shares some similarities with scripts:

 

Conventional prose method

The man casually waves to his acquaintance. "Yo dawg."

 

Script method

[The man casually waves to his acquaintance.]

Man: "Yo dawg."

 

1. [wave back] "Holla!"

2. [nod once] "Sup!"

 

Re: brackets to parentheses I'm not decided, but I think presenting dialogue in script format is acceptable.

Edited August 11, 201312 yr by mcmanusaur

Quotes for character speech, and parentheses for character actions, methinks, with meta-game text (like interface tooltips or description of mechanics) using neither.

This.

Smithereen peruses the thread. "Interesting," he states, "I never really have given much thought to this subject. I find prose-style to be the most natural, but that's probably just what I am used to, since I encourage speaking that way in my tabletop roleplaying group."

 

1. [Nod]

2. (Diplomacy) "Let me rid you of a few misconceptions..."

3. [ignite Flamethrower] "You'll pay for that!"

Edited August 11, 201312 yr by smithereen

The quotes make the most sense.  There is no reason to highly "run away / attack her" in any way in game though.  It is fairly obvious those aren't dialog options and what they are going to result in.

So... what happens when you're discussing some female person with a female person, and she asks "What do you think we should do about this?", and one of your options is "Attack her."?

 

Are you telling her that you think this being-discussed female person should be attacked, or are you telling the game that you wish for your character to attack the female with whom you're currently speaking?

 

Riddle me that, Batman.

 

 

Also, for what it's worth, I feel that the literal "do this" listings of actions aren't out of place in a list of dialogue options, since the options from which you're choosing are actually just actions that happen to all be dialogue. In other words, the dialogue UI is basically telling you "Here's what was just said. How do you react?", and each line of text with quotes around it is the same thing as "Say:" followed by the line your character will be saying.

 

That doesn't mean there aren't alternative methods that are also viable, but I don't have any problem with the way that kind of... syntax, for lack of a better word.

Edited August 12, 201312 yr by Lephys

"As an aside, how do you feel about dialogue trees making explicit the skills or stats being checked?" Smithereen scratches his beard. "From the top of my head, the Neverwinter Nights series clearly highlighted both skill checks and 'special' results, while Torment didn't identify anything. I certainly wasn't a fan of the Paragon and Renegade 'click for best results' system in Mass Effect, but I do want to be sure when I'm making a diplomacy roll."

 

1. ['Like' this post]

2. (Diplomacy)

3. [Provide examples]

4. [ignite Flamethrower] "This is the stupidest post I've read all day!"

I remember having once zealously defended the coloured options for 10 pages. I know I'm in a minority, but I think that's the way to go to convey tone when it is ambiguous.

As untraditional as it is, I find the color coding to be the most effective and obvious way to do it.

Italics instead of color, or bolded for action would also serve.

I prefer not to have my words and actions so irrevocably intertwined.

 

Just because I say I'll press the button shouldn't force me to press the button. I'd rather the words and actions be kept separate, and the actions be done outside of dialogue events.

I prefer not to have my words and actions so irrevocably intertwined.

 

Just because I say I'll press the button shouldn't force me to press the button. I'd rather the words and actions be kept separate, and the actions be done outside of dialogue events.

Well... I think the idea of in-dialogue actions is that they're supposed to be the subset of actions you could potentially perform under those circumstances, in relation to the dialogue (does it end, does it continue, etc.).

 

I mean, I don't even know how you'd keep something like "*Attack!*" separate from dialogue, as it's merely an indication to the somewhat turn-based nature of the dialogue system that you wish to end the dialogue system and perform some combat related action.

 

Beyond that, I don't know how you'd manually end dialogue, do something like slap someone in the face, or take something from their hand, then re-engage in dialogue. Or how the game would handle you just deciding that kind of precise action. The regular game controls would have to allow for that; for slapping people or snatching something forcefully from someone's hand, as distinct from a simple melee attack or pickpocketing.

 

In other words, how do you handle these things in relation to ongoing dialogue, which changes in reaction to both actions AND words, if not via the dialogue system?