Project Eternity to use a "Dispositions" morality system similar to Torment: Tides of Numenera's Tides

[teknoman2]

a [truth / lie] tag used to declare your future intentions, is pointless

Will you save us from the bandits?

1. Yes [Truth]

2. Yes [Lie]

3. No

4. I'll think about it

1 and 2 still allow you to choose if you will help or not when the bandits arrive, regardless of the tag

if however you need to perform an action along with the dialog line, then the tag is needed

Give me your money!

1. Here [Give the money]

2. Here [Pretend to give the money and stab him]

[Lephys]

a [truth / lie] tag used to declare your future intentions, is pointless

 

Precisely. Yet all declarations are not regarding future actions.

 

Also, honestly? A lot of the time it's just helpful to the player to keep information organized. If your player learned some specific bit of info 2 Chapters ago, and you want to lie about it to someone now, I'd rather just have the friggin' interface tell me which one's the truth and which one's the lie, rather than having to look it up in the journal or something. The character intuitively knows that in like... a millisecond of thought, so why should I have to go "wait a minute... which is accurate, and which isn't accurate?" just because I don't possess the character's virtual brain but otherwise control him nonetheless.

 

It differentiates between your character's knowledge of something's inaccuracy, and his obliviousness to that fact. You can say inaccurate things to people without lying.

 

I know there functionally isn't a lot of difference, in the actual game world. But, since a player is interacting with this game world, it's nice to have the information. We're going to have all those spiffy Expert Mode-style options, to toggle indicators on/off, so you can always do that if it doesn't float your boat. But, it's not as if there's literally no reason, ever, to have [lie] displayed.

[teknoman2]

 

a [truth / lie] tag used to declare your future intentions, is pointless

 

Precisely. Yet all declarations are not regarding future actions.

 

Also, honestly? A lot of the time it's just helpful to the player to keep information organized. If your player learned some specific bit of info 2 Chapters ago, and you want to lie about it to someone now, I'd rather just have the friggin' interface tell me which one's the truth and which one's the lie, rather than having to look it up in the journal or something. The character intuitively knows that in like... a millisecond of thought, so why should I have to go "wait a minute... which is accurate, and which isn't accurate?" just because I don't possess the character's virtual brain but otherwise control him nonetheless.

 

It differentiates between your character's knowledge of something's inaccuracy, and his obliviousness to that fact. You can say inaccurate things to people without lying.

 

I know there functionally isn't a lot of difference, in the actual game world. But, since a player is interacting with this game world, it's nice to have the information. We're going to have all those spiffy Expert Mode-style options, to toggle indicators on/off, so you can always do that if it doesn't float your boat. But, it's not as if there's literally no reason, ever, to have [lie] displayed.

 

that's also true. however the way i play it is: "if i dont remember it, my character does not remember it either". so the option to take away all tags is my cup of tea. im not against tags for those who want them, but sometimes, certain tags are just overkill.

of course if i get in a situation like the NCR hospital tent in FNV, where i was asked to help the wounded, an indication that "[medicine 50] is needed to help this guy" is necesary regardless of the tag preference

[Lephys]

that's also true. however the way i play it is: "if i dont remember it, my character does not remember it either".

Fair enough. But your character is not you. He does plenty of things that you have no control over. Like attacking, or casting a spell, or coming up with dialogue options for you to choose from based upon his own Intellect/knowledge. If your character has Knowledge:Arcana, for example, then the game has to tell YOU what your character knows involving Arcana, in a given situation.

 

I'm not saying you can't play it that way ("If I forgot it, so did my character"), but I'm simply pointing out, for what it's worth, that that 1:1 relationship between your knowledge and the character's doesn't hold up throughout the system.

 

In fact, Knowledge skills (and/or anything resembling them) are a good example of when a lie tag is quite useful. Sure, the game COULD just tell me, the player, the detailed information I need to know about a particular field of knowledge, then have me have to use my own brain power to figure out what's true and what isn't when trying to choose between lies and truths in dialogue regarding that topic. But, why use such a roundabout method for every single field of knowledge in the entire game, when I could just be told what's true and what isn't right then and there in the dialogue, in-context?

 

*shrug*. Anywho, I realize some people just plain prefer to do without them. And, I know you're not contesting my claims to their usefulness, now. I just thought Knowledge skills were an excellent example, and thusly shared.

[teknoman2]

in torment, if the nameless had intelligence 20, could come up with dialog options that would not be available if he had 10 or 15 int. however there was no indication that this is based on the characters intelligence... you had to use your own brain to make the connection of the choice with the stat. if you were not smart enough to realise that this was the smart thing to say, you could choose a different option that seemed better

[lolaldanee]

Lie tags have been and always will be stupid.  It is far easier to just give the option to "Let me join you on your bandit raid!" then we you actually get to the raid part let the player act as they choose.  If they go along and pillage obviously they weren't lying.  If they stop and slaughter the bandits in a surprise attack well.... they were lying.

how about, they changed their mind on the way?

they could have been telling the truth at first, but as soon as they see the slaughter they turn against the bandits

or the other way round

 

i like the [lie] tags where thy fit...

[Lephys]

in torment, if the nameless had intelligence 20, could come up with dialog options that would not be available if he had 10 or 15 int. however there was no indication that this is based on the characters intelligence... you had to use your own brain to make the connection of the choice with the stat. if you were not smart enough to realise that this was the smart thing to say, you could choose a different option that seemed better

 

That's kind of exactly my point. Regardless of whether or not it's indicated (the attribute source for the option), the specific dialogue option was spawned out of the Nameless One's virtual mind, and not from your own. Therefore, HE knew it was intelligent, because he had high intelligence, even if you did not.

 

What I was saying was, if the game wanted to allow you to say something smart because of his high intelligence, AND say something false as well as smart, then you wouldn't know which was which, unless the game first went out of its way to explain to you all the specifics of why, exactly, that was a smart thing to say, and why it was true, THEN presented you with both options and said "You should be able to tell which one's false, now."

 

Example:

 

Because of Knowledge: Nature, your character can say "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are blue, with triangle-shaped leaves," OR "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are yellow, and grow in squarish clumps." How do you, the character, know which is false? Your character already knows; that's what Knowledge: Nature already represents... his inherent knowledge of such things. It's not some clever puzzle to figure out. Just something he knows. So, why shouldn't the game just say "[lie]" on the option that isn't true? Now, you know what he applicably knows about Nature in this scenario (that there are berries that can treat that person's condition, and that they grow nearby, and what they look like), AND you know that the game's allowing you to lie about it. All from two brackets and three little letters.

 

The only way to do it with-OUT that tag would be to expect the player to read some encyclopedia entry on berries and what they can treat, then have them match up the descriptions in order to figure out something their character simply knows off the top of his head, right then and there.

 

For the record, this isn't a counter-argument to something you've said. Just an elaboration/clarification on my example that you seem to have possibly misunderstood (or maybe you were simply making sure I understood that the attribute tag next to the dialogue option wasn't necessary? In which case, I do, and thanks for making sure I do. Seriously.)

[Rostere]

I absolutely love the sound of this disposition system. I couldn't have made up a better system myself.

[teknoman2]

 

in torment, if the nameless had intelligence 20, could come up with dialog options that would not be available if he had 10 or 15 int. however there was no indication that this is based on the characters intelligence... you had to use your own brain to make the connection of the choice with the stat. if you were not smart enough to realise that this was the smart thing to say, you could choose a different option that seemed better

 

That's kind of exactly my point. Regardless of whether or not it's indicated (the attribute source for the option), the specific dialogue option was spawned out of the Nameless One's virtual mind, and not from your own. Therefore, HE knew it was intelligent, because he had high intelligence, even if you did not.

 

What I was saying was, if the game wanted to allow you to say something smart because of his high intelligence, AND say something false as well as smart, then you wouldn't know which was which, unless the game first went out of its way to explain to you all the specifics of why, exactly, that was a smart thing to say, and why it was true, THEN presented you with both options and said "You should be able to tell which one's false, now."

 

Example:

 

Because of Knowledge: Nature, your character can say "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are blue, with triangle-shaped leaves," OR "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are yellow, and grow in squarish clumps." How do you, the character, know which is false? Your character already knows; that's what Knowledge: Nature already represents... his inherent knowledge of such things. It's not some clever puzzle to figure out. Just something he knows. So, why shouldn't the game just say "[lie]" on the option that isn't true? Now, you know what he applicably knows about Nature in this scenario (that there are berries that can treat that person's condition, and that they grow nearby, and what they look like), AND you know that the game's allowing you to lie about it. All from two brackets and three little letters.

 

The only way to do it with-OUT that tag would be to expect the player to read some encyclopedia entry on berries and what they can treat, then have them match up the descriptions in order to figure out something their character simply knows off the top of his head, right then and there.

 

For the record, this isn't a counter-argument to something you've said. Just an elaboration/clarification on my example that you seem to have possibly misunderstood (or maybe you were simply making sure I understood that the attribute tag next to the dialogue option wasn't necessary? In which case, I do, and thanks for making sure I do. Seriously.)

 

im not arguing that tags are not needed. but they are situational. in your example it is needed, because as you say, it informs the player of something he does not know, as it was needed in my FNV example. all im saying, is that sometimes (like the "Let me join you" case) it is meaningless.

 

in my torment example, yes the character was smart enough to come up with the answer, but it was mixed with 4 or 5 other answers (some may have been based on other stats as well). so the player had to be smart enough to understand if and by what stat the answer has become available. that makes the player more involved than just choosing the tagged answer

Edited November 20, 2013 by teknoman2

[jethro]

Example:

 

Because of Knowledge: Nature, your character can say "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are blue, with triangle-shaped leaves," OR "There are berries that grow in this area that can treat your condition. They are yellow, and grow in squarish clumps." How do you, the character, know which is false? Your character already knows; that's what Knowledge: Nature already represents... his inherent knowledge of such things. It's not some clever puzzle to figure out. Just something he knows. So, why shouldn't the game just say "[lie]" on the option that isn't true? Now, you know what he applicably knows about Nature in this scenario (that there are berries that can treat that person's condition, and that they grow nearby, and what they look like), AND you know that the game's allowing you to lie about it. All from two brackets and three little letters.

 

The first example where such a tag really makes sense (IMO). I would opt for a different method of telling the player though: Instead of the charring [Lie] there should be descriptive sentences included, "Knowing well that blue berries could help him, I say 'There are berries that can treat your condition. They are yellow'". Or before any of the answer options there is a line in italics "You suddenly remember that blue berries can treat his condition".

 

That is if the designers already add descriptions into the dialogs aka "A blind beggar approaches you and fearfully warns you "The end is nigh". I remember they said they wanted to do this but I could be wrong and this was for  torment or some other project?

 

By the way, the example could be changed so that the player knows that the berries are blue. One of the companions could whisper in his ear "The blue berries should heal him" or you can find a book about herbalism somewhere in this place (if you don't find it, well that's chance, like a skill check).

Edited November 20, 2013 by jethro

[Silent Winter]

The first example where such a tag really makes sense (IMO). I would opt for a different method of telling the player though: Instead of the charring [Lie] there should be descriptive sentences included, "Knowing well that blue berries could help him, I say 'There are berries that can treat your condition. They are yellow'". Or before any of the answer options there is a line in italics "You suddenly remember that blue berries can treat his condition".

I'd prefer this style too - they've already mentioned the inclusion of narrative in dialogue (not necessarily in italics - they might do that or might do the PST way of novel-writing 'The man approaches you and yells "oi, these berries gave me the runs" while trying to make an aggresive stance and clench, both at the same time'

There may be a case for the [LIE] and [TRUTH] tags, but I'd prefer a more natural method of communicating between the player and character.

[Lephys]

A) You don't need [lie] AND [truth] tags, as the absence of a [lie] tag is already indicative of truth.

B) While I understand and respect your desires to have the information presented in a different, dare I say more immersive, style, it's still a highly unnecessary amount of extra text to convey what is essentially "Here is what your character knows to be true, and here is what you can say."

 

While I'm normally a huge fan of such styles of presentation, the dialogue option interface is already in its own little "possibilities of the future" bubble of time. It's a direct liaison between the player and the story. The options you CAN choose are displayed there, for the benefit of the player, but aren't actually a part of your playthrough's instance of the narrative until you choose them. For that reason, I don't feel the need to avoid some kind of "artificial" indicator to the player, and/or to dress it up as some immersive conveyance within the narrative, since it's telling you that you CAN lie. I don't need to elaborately comprehend precisely what my character knows about berries, in a literarily eloquent fashion, only to not-even-choose that dialogue option.

 

It's like a button on an action bar. You put a symbol on it to indicate to the player what kind of ability will be occurring. You don't worry with making gestures required for choosing attacks, instead of button clicks, because button clicks are so artificial.

 

Anywho, that's just me elaborating on the "why" of how I feel about this. I'm not telling anyone how to feel about it. By all means, disagree with me.

 

Also, just for what it's worth, the other possibility for the usefulness of [lie] tags, on all lies, is the possibility of the system representing the psychological effects of lying on the person doing the lying. If you say something that you know is true, you have no trouble saying it in a way that sounds like you mean it. However, if you're lying, you've basically got to put on a good act. Hence why some people are terrible liars, and others are extremely convincing. So, IF the game decided to factor that in, you'd have to pick a "truth" that aligned with your character's actual belief, and a "lie" that did not. If you really wanted to join bandits, then "let me join you" would be the truth and wouldn't prompt any kind of skill/attribute check. If you didn't really want to join them at all, then you'd be pretending you did when you said it, so you'd have to make some kind of bluff check.

 

Again, that's just a mechanic option. Not saying the game has to do that. But, if it did, it would make sense to distinguish between truth and lies, every single time. Although, then you run into "how do you determine which is the truth, and which is a lie?"

[Fearabbit]

Also, just for what it's worth, the other possibility for the usefulness of [lie] tags, on all lies, is the possibility of the system representing the psychological effects of lying on the person doing the lying. If you say something that you know is true, you have no trouble saying it in a way that sounds like you mean it. However, if you're lying, you've basically got to put on a good act. Hence why some people are terrible liars, and others are extremely convincing. So, IF the game decided to factor that in, you'd have to pick a "truth" that aligned with your character's actual belief, and a "lie" that did not. If you really wanted to join bandits, then "let me join you" would be the truth and wouldn't prompt any kind of skill/attribute check. If you didn't really want to join them at all, then you'd be pretending you did when you said it, so you'd have to make some kind of bluff check.

 

...which is, however, the sort of [Lie] tag that I absolutely cannot stand. This happens in some RPGs too - there's an option to lie about something, and you're basically guaranteed that the truth will come out and you'll find yourself in a difficult spot. So you (or, at least, I) never lie in those situations.

Which is my own personal reason why I find the "I want to join you! [Lie]" thing problematic, because I would suspect that this choice directly leads to a situation where I get caught and have to kill everybody while the odds are against me.

 

The discussion still hasn't brought up a good concept how the player can be told what his options are, neither has it provided a good argument as to why something like that wouldn't be necessary. Yadda yadda Expert Mode and "have to use your brain", yeah I get it, you're all very used to the concepts. New players aren't, and Obsidian has said time and again that they will try to make the game accessible.

"Use your brain" is a flawed argument, by the way, because no two brains think alike. The Nameless One has 5 dialogue choices, one of which is secretely the high-INT answer. How can you tell? By analyzing which of these sentences is most likely to have been written by a developer as the smartest choice available. Which means you have to consider the (unknown to you) intentions the developer had when writing the scene and the fact that he knew the outcome beforehand, whereas you don't. This thing can go wrong. It often doesn't, but sometimes "use your brain" is simply unfair because your failing had less to do with your inability to analyze the situation correctly, and more with your inability to know what the developer was thinking.

 

Example: A demon asks you "What is connected to the energy of a person?". The answers are "Magic", "Strength", "Responsibility" and "Mass". Now suppose you don't know Albert Einstein's theories because you never had a Physics course, but you do study Philosophy and you think that "Responsibility" is most fitting. But of course, the developer thought "Mass" was the most intelligent answer you could give. So now you have to fight the demon, or whatever.

Different people have different solutions. And all of the above would actually be correct answers - you cannot know which is deemed the most intelligent one by some guy you never met.

This is a general problem with the limited amount of choices in dialogue systems, but at least tagging answers tells the player "okay, this might not look like the most intelligent answer to you, but some developer decided that it is, so pick that one if you want the intelligent outcome".

Edited November 20, 2013 by Fearabbit

[Lephys]

...which is, however, the sort of [Lie] tag that I absolutely cannot stand. This happens in some RPGs too - there's an option to lie about something, and you're basically guaranteed that the truth will come out and you'll find yourself in a difficult spot. So you (or, at least, I) never lie in those situations.

Which is my own personal reason why I find the "I want to join you! [Lie]" thing problematic, because I would suspect that this choice directly leads to a situation where I get caught and have to kill everybody while the odds are against me.

So, whenever you're confronted with enemies, all you can think of is a situation in which you miss a bunch and fail to kill them, and your whole party ends up dead? Don't get me wrong... I understand that poor design has led to games in which you can't help but think that, because lying is some kind of crazy gamble that's put into the game, instead of something that you're intended to be able to build your character to do. And I'm not telling you how to feel about it. But, you cited my last example of one that you particularly cannot stand. Is it silly for one dialogue option that invokes a skill check and another that doesn't to be distinguished from one another?

 

What if one option was "Hi," and another was "Hi [juggle to entertain this person]?" Would you just want them both to say "hi," and that's it? Simply because you can't imagine not-failing the juggling check and that person thinking negatively of you?

 

Forget having your lies figured out. What about a situation in which you have no idea how trustworthy some NPC is, even though they SEEM really trustworthy (they're the head of some local order of Knights who's fighting against the evil lord villain or something), and at any point in time that character could leak important TRUTHFUL information? You don't want the option to lie to them, in case they're going to give sensitive information to someone else? Just go around telling the truth to everyone, because you wouldn't want to get caught in a lie?

 

Looking at only the potential for negatives to lying is an irrationally one-sided perspective, if you ask me.

 

The discussion still hasn't brought up a good concept how the player can be told what his options are, neither has it provided a good argument as to why something like that wouldn't be necessary. Yadda yadda Expert Mode and "have to use your brain", yeah I get it, you're all very used to the concepts. New players aren't, and Obsidian has said time and again that they will try to make the game accessible.

"Use your brain" is a flawed argument, by the way, because no two brains think alike. The Nameless One has 5 dialogue choices, one of which is secretely the high-INT answer. How can you tell? By analyzing which of these sentences is most likely to have been written by a developer as the smartest choice available. Which means you have to consider the (unknown to you) intentions the developer had when writing the scene and the fact that he knew the outcome beforehand, whereas you don't. This thing can go wrong. It often doesn't, but sometimes "use your brain" is simply unfair because your failing had less to do with your inability to analyze the situation correctly, and more with your inability to know what the developer was thinking.

Use your brain isn't a flawed argument. "Use your brain and who cares about how complicated or high-level something is to figure out" is a flawed argument. It's a matter of extents. If you didn't use your brain at all, the game would literally play itself. There'd be no choice involved, and/or all "choices" would produce the same results (effectively a lack of choice). You can't have any dialogue at all without SOME percentage of people in the world being beneath the ability to take advantage of the game by comprehending the text. "I shouldn't have to figure anything out" is just as silly of an argument as "you should literally have to figure everything out, and there's no limit to the complexity or advanced nature of the dilemmas/information."

 

Also, again with extents, the developer doesn't need to write "the most intelligent answer." The point is to abstract thresholds at which your character would even bother to figure something out, or would feasibly be able to in the span of the dialogue. If yes, then they comment on it. If not, then they don't. Then, you have different levels of this.

 

The same goes for specific knowledge, rather than the intelligence level of a given option. If you have 20 Knowledge in Leaves, and someone's talking about some crazy exotic plant leaf, the abstracted system determines whether or not 20 Knowledge represents knowledge of that particular plant or not, based on rarity, etc. Maybe 20's not enough, so your character is assumed to not really know much about that leaf. If it's over 20, then you might ask about something else regarding that leaf, or correct the person talking about it, etc. (in an option). So, not to judge anyone, but if you can't figure out that a dialogue option in which your character is claiming specific knowledge about a mentioned leaf is probably based off of his Knowledge: Leaf skill, then I dare say you're going to have issues with pretty much the entire nature of the game. Granted, the options don't have any need to require an actual extensive knowledge of plant life from you, the player. If they do, I'd say that's a bit overboard.

 

But, the same thing can be done with intelligent answers. If someone says "Ahh, sorry to keep you waiting. I was just washing up.", and your character has the option "That's strange... for someone who's delayed a meeting solely for the purpose of washing up, you sure seem to have missed a lot of dirt on your hands.", you should probably be able to figure out that such an option makes use of intelligent reasoning, whereas "Oh, no worries. Man, the sky sure is blue today, isn't it?", not so much...

 

Also, why would you need to know what options are possible with stats you don't have? The option has no reason to absolutely tell you the source of its existence. It only needs to tell you when you're making active use of some skill or stat via a check, etc., or when you're conveying something in a specific tone that the text alone doesn't make clear.

 

It's just like a button on a device. If the button turns on the device, then it usually says "power," or has a symbol for power on it, so that the user of the button can decide whether or not to press that button. We don't need the name of the person who built that device or installed that button on the button, or a design schematic of the whole device. Just something indicating what we can't intuitively deduce by looking at the button that we need to know to make an informed decision.

 

If you have high intelligence, and an option is available because of that, you can still decide whether or not to choose that option, regardless of whether or not you know it specifically is available because of a certain number value on your intelligence stat. And if you don't have high enough intelligence, then you don't even see the option. Just like you don't get a readout for hit chance and damage from a crossbow if you're wielding a sword, in combat. You only see the sword options.

 

If the most important aspect of the system is to pick the most intelligent response sheerly because it's so intelligent, then it's flawed already, as "available because of intelligence" shouldn't mean "best response." That problem isn't due to the representation of intelligence in writing responses, but, rather, to the arbitrary attachment of quality of response in any given situation to the intelligence level that's allowing for that response.

 

Saying the smartest thing ever might get you killed, or it might get you hated, or it might make people think you know too much and therefore stop them from revealing anything else around you, etc. Just like telling anyone anything COULD result in people double-crossing you, because you don't know who you can trust. So, saying the smartest thing isn't always the smartest decision.

 

I will say, though, that, since the existence of an extra option due to a high stat doesn't automatically make it the best (or even a good) response in a given dialogue, there isn't much reason to NOT reveal to the player that that option exists solely because of that high stat.

Edited November 20, 2013 by Lephys

[JFSOCC]

Here's the difference between playing with the rep tags on and off.

 

[benevolent] "You seem to have learned your lesson. There's no need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

vs.

 

"You seem to have learned your lesson. There's no need to involve the guards. Just don't do it again."

 

As in the IE games, what you pick is exactly what your character says/does.

Oh you sweet talker you, you have no idea how happy you just made me!

 

I remember a thread when I was fairly new to these forums about tags, and I admit, I may have cared a little too much about it, and that may have affected my posts in that thread.

But woo, am I glad to hear this.

Edited November 21, 2013 by JFSOCC

[jethro]

B) While I understand and respect your desires to have the information presented in a different, dare I say more immersive, style, it's still a highly unnecessary amount of extra text to convey what is essentially "Here is what your character knows to be true, and here is what you can say."

I'm not afraid of an extra descriptive sentence. Considering that most of the time the tag isn't even necessary (the bandit example). But ok, it is a matter of taste

 

Also, just for what it's worth, the other possibility for the usefulness of [lie] tags, on all lies, is the possibility of the system representing the psychological effects of lying on the person doing the lying. ... bluff check.

Didn't someone say in this thread that there are no conversation skills and therefore no skill checks in PE? PE won't simulate any psychological problems with lying. Just saying, we don't need to repeat old arguments that aren't even relevant for PE.

 

The discussion still hasn't brought up a good concept how the player can be told what his options are ...

Actually, while your two high-int examples both are flawed (the first because the high-int answer shouldn't be automatically the answer you take, the second because a riddle answer should not tell you the solution and a failed riddle should not fail the game, i.e. lead to fights that you can't win), I just remembered a story told by the designer of Dishonored:

 

They tried the game with a focus group and there was an entrance hall with steps leading up to the second floor. On the steps was a guard telling the player "you cannot pass". Many of the focus group did take that as a "law of the game" and didn't even try to get up the stairs although there were lots of ways to do it. This would indicate that for main stream appeal maybe a hint like a lie tag may be necessary.

 

But on the other hand is it really necessary that even the most brain-challenged guy finds every possible way to solve a quest? So someone didn't get that he could join the bandits as a ruse. He probably refuses instead and has a nice combat instead. This doesn't mean he can't complete the game.

Edited November 21, 2013 by jethro

[Lephys]

I'm not afraid of an extra descriptive sentence. Considering that most of the time the tag isn't even necessary (the bandit example). But ok, it is a matter of taste

A) Because I said I was somehow frightened of an extra sentence. And

B) Because whether or not something's necessary (by definition of the word) is a matter of taste, and something can't be both unnecessary AND a matter of taste.

 

Is it that hard to say "You're right, but I'd still like them"? I merely explained the objective reason why I don't like them. That doesn't mean everyone HAS to not like them, or that there aren't reasons TO like them.

 

Didn't someone say in this thread that there are no conversation skills and therefore no skill checks in PE? PE won't simulate any psychological problems with lying. Just saying, we don't need to repeat old arguments that aren't even relevant for PE.

Just like there was no reason to talk about full misses before they were added back in after the consideration of discussion on miss mechanics, because they weren't relevant to P:E?

 

Also, it wasn't an argument. I wasn't saying "here's why this should be in P:E" or anything. It was contextual to the discussion. WERE the mechanics to represent stat/skill-based deception in dialogue, there would be a need for tags on everything (for truths versus lies).

 

Lastly, I don't think the game's going to be devoid of dialogue-based persuasion/deception, but it's not going to be based on the "Deceive," "Persuade," or "Speech" skills. I seem to recall a quote from Josh basically saying he'd rather such things be checked against one or more stats, along with circumstances, as opposed to on the value of some skill that only serves to determine success or failure at that one act. So, actually, you could still have a check of some sort represented, but it wouldn't be a simple skill check. I honestly don't know what that would mean for the usefulness of [lie] tags without more specific information as to just how that will work in P:E, but I'd hardly say that the representation of such an active deception making the tags necessary is completely irrelevant to P:E.

[jethro]

 

I'm not afraid of an extra descriptive sentence. Considering that most of the time the tag isn't even necessary (the bandit example). But ok, it is a matter of taste

A) Because I said I was somehow frightened of an extra sentence. And

B) Because whether or not something's necessary (by definition of the word) is a matter of taste, and something can't be both unnecessary AND a matter of taste.

 

"afraid" is probably the wrong word to express my opinion that the additional sentence necessary to convey the knowledge of the character IS small (and by the way not at all unnecessary if it replaces a lie tag).

 

"Matter of taste" was refering to the whole tag vs. sentence dilemma, not to the cases where it is unnecessary. I was actually agreeing with a statement you made.

[Cubiq]

OK so we will be able to turn off indications on what type of answer we will give, that's good. I just hope it won't come down to every conversation having only 3 answers 1 for Hateful 1 for kind and 1 for clever.

I hope there will be multiple agressive and multiple clever lines that give you more or less points towards the personality you chose, like in IE games, and not like in Mass effect.

Edited November 22, 2013 by Cubiq

[Lephys]

"afraid" is probably the wrong word to express my opinion that the additional sentence necessary to convey the knowledge of the character IS small (and by the way not at all unnecessary if it replaces a lie tag).

... unless it unnecessarily replaces a lie tag. The lie tag doesn't HAVE to be replaced, but it would be preferable (from your standpoint -- which, again, I understand) and subjectively pleasant for it to be replaced. Which, again, the only reason I don't opt for that to be the definite design to go with is that the indication that something is a lie is, itself, a game-to-player indication, and not some in-character bit of information. If it was a decision between "Do you not see this +1 sword I'm wielding?" and "Obviously you must've ignored the weapon I'm carrying. Such a blade is earned, if you take my meaning.", then I'd say, yes, the actual in-character speech should not be referencing out-of-character, this-is-just-some-software-running-on-your-computer game mechanics. It should directly reference what they're abstractly representing in the virtual world. But, your character's interaction with another character is in no way making reference to deception. The ONLY reason for the indicator is to make it clear to the player that the option being presented to you, for your character to say, is information your character knows to be false.

 

It's for the same reason I don't see any need for the weapon-description tooltips to say "The sharpness of this blade could probably slice straight through a coconut, but would have difficulty cutting through solid oak" instead of "8-11 damage." In a way it would be pretty cool, sure, but nothing demands that immersion (for lack of a better word) if the description isn't taking place purely within the virtual world (which it isn't, because the game's talking directly to the player; none of the characters are going to view the weapon description sheets. It lives in the UI, and not in the actual game world. Just like a [lie] tag.)

 

"Matter of taste" was refering to the whole tag vs. sentence dilemma, not to the cases where it is unnecessary. I was actually agreeing with a statement you made.

My mistake. I agree that it is partially a matter of taste (whether or not to use immersive-style description or just a gamey tag), and I don't think it's dumb to prefer/desire the description in lieu of the tag. I only meant that the description is not objectively necessary, as all it does at that point is be pleasing to a given user (such as yourself). There's nothing wrong with that. It's not wrong just because it's subjective. Part of the job of a video game is to fulfill subjective desires. Hence customization and the like.

 

I just evaluate stuff like that (Hmm... IS this actually objectively necessary, or isn't it?) rather than guessing or just plain not worrying about it, for I am an android. 8P