character speech vs text boxes

[Anarcho]

I started to ponder this question while on a plane last night (because, as you see, i'm a dork).  I don't know if this has come up before, and I know it might sound like a lame topic for discussion, but I think it's interesting.  I think that when it comes to a game's design, deciding on character speech or text boxes for  visual observations makes a big difference in any game. 

Think to the difference between a Monkey Island game and a King's Quest game.  When you look at an object in MI, Guybrush makes some pithy comment about his surroundings.  When you look at an object in King's Quest, you get some grandiose description from some godly narrator. 

Now obviously if a game leans more towards comedy and works the character speech angle, you're going to expect a less serious response.  But no matter how serious a game can be, if it only uses character speech to respond to "look" commands, you're going to miss out on rich descriptions that can help develop setting.  This is one thing I feel I missed out on in my game, Emily Enough.  I only used character speech, and found that I couldn't build up the creepiness of the setting just by using Emily's own observations.  I could, however, build up her character by allowing the player (which has just been me, so far) to see how she responds to different things.

I'm working on the design for my next game, and I think i might go the opposite route with a narrator describing things rather than the character doing it.  I just think back to games like King's Quest III that were visually unimpressive, but still very indepth and creepy because the designers did a good job of building up the setting through commands like "LOOK AT BOWL" and "LOOK AT STAIRS".

Does any of this make sense?  Is it at all interesting?  Thoughts?

[bush_monkey]

I know exactly what you mean. When I was developing my game Valis, I was torn at first as to how I would introduce the setting, how to relay the right mood. In the end, I kinda settled in between full-blown narrator and character speech. I have a character writing a letter explaining the situation to someone else.

[Pod]

As much as I agree with you that the boxes make more sense in a "serious" game, I fucking hate those boxes. They're gross.

[stu]

I like the Leisure Suit Larry approach. Where the character and narrator interact with each other, but i guess that only works best with speech, rather than text and isn't the best way to make the game serious.

[Rui 'Trovatore' Pires]

Stu - I don't recall any Larry but 7 (which had no boxes) to have speech. Well, not in the collection I bought, anyway.

Honestly, I think it doesn't make much difference. It looks cool to have boxes. It looks even cooler to reserve them for special occasions, like the conversation boxes in Gabriel Knight 1. I also have to say that your use of the words "pithy" and "grandiose" is misleading, and that using no narrator does NOT necessarily empoverish the story or make it stricktly comedy. Well, it didn't happen in The Longest Journey, for sure. Nor in Blade Runner. Hey, it all depends on the game, ultimately. Use narrator or don't or use the boxes, it depends on the game. Gabe Knight mixed narrator and character nicely. Discworld Noir achieved great lines which an out-of-story narrator couldn't do. And if you say "But he was supposed to SOUND like a sort of narrator, in film noir style", I'll say "you just proved my point. It's all about the game, and what it asks".

[Pod]

it depends how you're writing it. It's like writing a book. When a character notices something in a book, do you describe it from his point of view or from an outside point of view?

1st, 2nd or 3rd person. As you're still at the writing stage, I'd google abotu for websites that are aimed at novice authors - it's the same principal

[Babar]

A technical but nonetheless relevant little bit of information:
Character speech would work well with a game GUI where the inventory is a fixed part of the screen (like Monkey Island and Kyrandia).
If it is the inventory that pops up over the screen, it is a little awkward having the character describe items from BEHIND the inventory box. Monkey Island 3 and Sam 'n Max however, did accomplish it somewhat. I suppose it would work if your inventory covers the WHOLE screen.

[IceMan]

I think generally, that games like the MI series used speech to add depth to the character, while the KQ series used text boxes to add depth to the world.  The Broken Sword games went for a kind of compromise - having the main character "think" descriptions, you got both kinds of information - personal and environmental.

[Alun]

Pod and IceMan have already touched on what I was going to say,  but what they hey; I'll say it anyway even if it's now a little redundant.

But no matter how serious a game can be, if it only uses character speech to respond to "look" commands, you're going to miss out on rich descriptions that can help develop setting.

Not necessarily--the character's comments can develop the setting just as much, but from the character's point of view.  And even if the character isn't terribly observant or long-winded, seeing things from his point of view helps develop his character, so it's a trade-off.

Ultimately, it comes down to, as Pod said, the difference between first-person and third-person writing.  Is a novel written in the first person necessarily lacking in setting detail?  Not at all.  It depends on how it's done.  There are advantages and disadvantages to writing everything from the character's point of view; it depends on what kind of feel you're going for, but it has nothing to do with how serious the game is (both first and third person can be, and have been, used for either serious or comedic writing), and no necessary relation to how much detail you want to put into the setting.

[Pod]

The key word in Alun's second paragraph was "everything".

Do it consistently. Don't constantly switch the grammatical person mid-game. It's unprofessional and rubbish.

[Helm]

this is actually one of the big differences between lec and sierra. Sierra used a more IF-inspired narrator description, whereas LEC used the character speech almost exclusively. I prefer the former. I find  narration very useful, and I it irritates me in a sort of breaking-fourth-wall way when a character talks out loud due to my clicking look on thing. I know it shouldn't, since he complies when I tell him to walk there, or use that, so why look should be any different? But it is.

Also, the narrator can be hilarious if done right, look at quest for glory 4.

Personally, I think character speech should only be used in conversations between pc and npc etc. Where it would make sense for someone to talk out loud. No 'I see a big door.'

[Esseb]

I like to think of it as hearing what the character is thinking when Guybrush for instance says "It's just a big, yellow door" or similar when looking at a door. Sure, he may move his lips while doing so but that doesn't detract from the feeling.

Narrator descriptions to me has the effect Helm described: Detachment from the game, fourth wall broken and all that. Who is this mysterious narrator? Why does he place a big box in the middle of the screen, pausing the game and describing what I, I more or less being the character I'm playing, wanted to look at? Be gone you.

Funny that.

[Anarcho]

But writing and designing an adventure game is substantially different than writing a novel, and it isn't just a matter of what perspective you're using--1st, 2nd or 3rd.  For example, in a book written in 1st person, the main character can interject his or her thoughts at any time to help develop setting or characters.  But in an adventure game, it's somewhat awkward to be walking through a haunted house and have the main character suddenly say, "While walking through this musty hallway, I found myself frightened."  In an adventure game you're primarily depending upon the player to decide when he or she wants some kind of interaction.  The game can naturally restrict the kind of introspection that makes 1st person writing interesting. 

Now clearly there are exceptions to every rule, and really there are only as many restrictions as we allow.  I mean, do you ever see games that involve the narrator interrupting the game at various times to discuss the emotional condition of the main character?  In the Quest for Glory games you would occasionally get a "You are tired" or "You must rest", but I don't think you'd usually get anything more than that.  Maybe you'd get that kind of thing in cutscenes, but not in normal gameplay.  What if the narrator was more assertive, I think it could make for an interesting game (and if there are examples of this already being done, let me know).

And another thing, when do you see games that are in 3rd person Omniscient?  You will often see the narrator describing the character, and maybe getting inside the character's head occasionally, but what about the narrator being able to describe the moods, opinions and thoughts of ALL characters at any point in time?  I'm not sure if it would be a good thing to do in an adventure game...but has this been done?

[Alun]

But writing and designing an adventure game is substantially different than writing a novel, and it isn't just a matter of what perspective you're using--1st, 2nd or 3rd.

It's not the same as writing a novel, of course, but I think the analogy with writing in the first and third person is still a reasonable parallel to draw.

For example, in a book written in 1st person, the main character can interject his or her thoughts at any time to help develop setting or characters.  But in an adventure game, it's somewhat awkward to be walking through a haunted house and have the main character suddenly say, "While walking through this musty hallway, I found myself frightened."

It would be just awkward, though, wouldn't it, for a narrator to say "While walking through this musty hallway, Roger found himself frightened".  So this doesn't have much to do with whether the character's saying the text or not.  And honestly, that would be awkward in a novel, too, whether it's written in the first or third person.  In general (though there are exceptions), a good writer won't just have a character come right out and state his emotions that baldly.  There's a piece of advice often given to inexperienced writers: "Show, don't tell."  While it's not something that must be followed slavishly, and "telling" is sometimes necessary, it's true that in general it's much better, even in first-person writing, to show how a character feels through his actions than to have him come out and say something like "I found myself frightened".

For a graphic adventure, such statements of emotion should be even less necessary, since you can literally see the character.  Just as in a movie--and yes, I know that a graphic adventure is different from a movie, too, of course, but again I think a reasonable analogy can be drawn--you'll see characters emotions stated explicitly even less often than in a book, the same is true of graphic adventure games.  Except in extreme cases, there shouldn't be a need for it to be said explicitly how a character feels.

In an adventure game you're primarily depending upon the player to decide when he or she wants some kind of interaction.  The game can naturally restrict the kind of introspection that makes 1st person writing interesting.

Again, first person writing isn't necessarily as introspective as you're making it out to be.  It doesn't necessarily dwell on what the character's thinking and feeling.  And if you want to dwell on what characters are thinking and feeling, that can be done in third-person as well (ever read anything by Thomas Hardy?)  The main difference between first and third person is that in first person you're only getting one character's perspective; it has nothing to do with how in-depth you're getting with that character's inner thoughts.

And another thing, when do you see games that are in 3rd person Omniscient?

All the time.  Seriously.  All the time.

No, you don't often see a narrator describing the "moods, opinions, and thoughts" of other characters, but you don't see a narrator describing the moods, opinions, and thoughts of the PC, either.  Again, explicitly describing moods and thoughts is something that should usually be avoided in fiction (though there are exceptions), and in a visual medium it becomes even less necessary.

However, what you do see quite frequently in adventure games is occasional cutscenes--or even playable portions with other characters--that don't involve the main character at all.  That's a big jump in POV, which is what characterizes the omniscient narrator in the first place, so I think that's a reasonable parallel to the omniscient narrator viewpoint in fiction.  (It's not a perfect parallel, because they're different media with some different needs and methods, but I think it's certainly analogous.)

Now, since these cuts to scenes not involving the main character occur even in adventure games in which the main character does speak the text--I guess going by the analogies I've set out above this means that that would be analogous to a first-person story that occasionally cuts out to the omniscient narrator viewpoint.  Which, admittedly, would be rather unusual in written fiction, but not entirely unknown.  But again, I guess the frequency of this sort of changing POV in adventures just illustrates another difference between the media...

[Anarcho]

I'm really gonna have to disagree with you here.  Authors will come out and say what the character is thinking ALL THE TIME when writing in first person.  That's the whole point, the character is describing what's going on.  If a character is going for a long drive, he's going to say that he's been driving all night and is exhausted.  If it's written in first person, how is the character who's telling the story going to show how tired they are?  THEY'RE telling the story, it's inherent that they are sharing their thoughts.  With 3rd person, sure the situation is different (and quite honestly, i'm not advocating 1st person writing, I don't usually enjoy it).

As for graphic adventures, unless you're using a higher resolution, you CAN'T see the character's reaction.  Maybe if you're graphics are up there with CMI, but not if you've got pixilated figures with dots for eyes.  Most times, you're going to have to describe the character's reaction, either through later dialogue or some kind of narration.  What I'm getting at is with lower resolutions and the inability to create tons of complex animations while working as a sole designer, there is room for discussion on how to breathe more life and depth into characters.

[Alun]

I'm really gonna have to disagree with you here.  Authors will come out and say what the character is thinking ALL THE TIME when writing in first person.  That's the whole point, the character is describing what's going on.

Obviously, in a first person story, everything comes through the viewpoint character's perspective, so everything is at some level the character's thoughts.  (And the same happens in adventure games; characters state what they think of the objects you've examined.)  But there's a difference between telling the immediate situation from a character's viewpoint, and getting into a character's deep feelings and introspective musings.  You seemed to be saying that the latter was also a necessary part of first-person writing, that it wasn't just saying things from the character's viewpoint, but constantly coming out and giving his in-depth opinions and feelings.  And if you think that's the point of first-person writing...uh, no, it's really, really not.  Seriously.  Granted, I'm not a published author (yet), but I've done enough writing, and read enough about writing, to know the basics.  And first person does not mean the character is going to say what he's feeling all the time.  That may happen in first person a little more than in third person, but it's certainly not the "whole point".

If a character is going for a long drive, he's going to say that he's been driving all night and is exhausted.  If it's written in first person, how is the character who's telling the story going to show how tired they are?

"I yawned and blinked my eyes, struggling to stay awake."  Or "I shook myself as I realized I'd come close to dozing off again."  Or "I got out the No-Doz from the glove compartment, took out a pill, and swallowed it down."  Or "The street ahead seemed to blur into a grey smear, with the taillights of the cars in front of me barely visible as glowing red blobs.  I took my hand off the wheel long enough to rub my eyes, and things became a little clearer, but I knew I couldn't keep this up much longer."

In good writing, very seldom is a character going to come right out and say in first-person narration "I've been driving all night and I'm exhausted," any more than a narrator in a third-person story is going to say "Bob had been driving all night and was exhausted."  There are other, generally much better, ways of getting the point across.

As for graphic adventures, unless you're using a higher resolution, you CAN'T see the character's reaction.  Maybe if you're graphics are up there with CMI, but not if you've got pixilated figures with dots for eyes.

You can show reaction by many other ways than facial expressions, and yes, it can be done even at low resolution.  (Besides, even with low resolution you can do quite a bit with facial expressions if you try.)  But anyway, that's not really relevant to the main point.  You don't need to be that explicit about a character's emotions, and whether things are in first or third person doesn't have much bearing on the matter.

[Anarcho]

Ok dude, I think you're reading way too much into my first and second post.  I think we're largely talking about the same thing here.   For the record, I don't think 1st person writing is all "deep feelings and introspective musings".  I'm not sure why you would accuse me of thinking that.  You give excellent examples of signaling emotion or condition through action, and I'm not contesting that that is perhaps the best way to write novels.

Look, I didn't start this discussion to debate the finer points of literary technique, I was just pointing out that when you use speech dialogue for look commands, you're restricted to that persons perspective.  And I think there is room within adventure games to utilize different tools to explore characters and setting. 

We're not just writing novels here, we have the ability to use different GUIs that can explore setting and characters in different ways.  I mean, look at The Sims.   I think the way you can monitor a character's emotional condition in real-time is kinda neat.  I don't know that it would translate into the adventure game genre, but why not experiment?

[Alun]

Yeah, I agree we've gotten off the point, and I was going to say as much in my next reply anyway and try to direct things back to the original topic.  But since you did, I guess I don't have to.     And if I misinterpreted or read too much into anything you said, I apologize.

I was just pointing out that when you use speech dialogue for look commands, you're restricted to that persons perspective.

Sure, by definition, but I don't think that's a problem.  Not to beat a dead horse, but you're restricting yourself to a single person's perspective in first-person prose writing, too (and in much third person, for that matter), but that's not generally considered a deficiency.

Of course, a lot of it comes down to personal preference.  You've said you don't like first-person novels, so maybe you don't like speech-dialogue-for-look-commands games for the same reasons.  Helm has said that using speech dialogue for look commands is jarring for him and seems to break the fourth wall.  But Esseb's said that for him, just the reverse is true; it's third-person narration that breaks the fourth wall for him.

And I think there is room within adventure games to utilize different tools to explore characters and setting.

Oh, certainly there's room for exploration of different techniques; I just don't think the old techniques should be discarded altogether.  I think the use of speech dialogue for everything works for many games.  But there may be something else that works better for some games, or that's preferred by some people, and that's great.  I'm definitely not saying that every game has to use the speech dialogue for everything; I'm only saying it's a valid method that shouldn't be dismissed out of hand.  But yes, I certainly agree that there's room for innovation, and that there's some value in experimenting and trying out new techniques and expanding the genre's repertoire.

And on that note, yeah, it seems maybe we've come to the point that we're agreeing on the basics and just arguing over minutiae and personal preferences, so I'm willing to end the discussion here if you are. 

[Anarcho]

I definitely don't have a problem with speech dialogue for everything...I just spent a year and a half working on a game that did just that.  I can't imagine having done it any other way---sometimes the style of game just calls for it.  I can't imagine Monkey Island using a narrator---half of the fun of the game is that you're tagging along with Guybrush and you get to know him through his reactions.  But I think an aspect of storytelling is lost, because you can't describe settings and events in a literary or descriptive way---it always has to be from the perspective of your player (except for cutscenes, which definitely ad another element to the game's perspective).  And just like you say, you can do it in novels when writing in first person through descriptions of actions, but unless you're character is a noir throwback, it would be strange for a character in an adventure game to suddenly say, "I yawned and blinked my eyes, struggling to stay awake."  As cool or funny or wierd as that might be.

But then again, why not?  That's kind of what I was thinking about and why I started this, why can't you do something weird like that?  Why do we always have to wait for the player to take the initiative?  That's what I like about a lot of the best new amateur games---yahtzee's Days series and Enclosure come to mind, the player has a certain amount of control over the progression of the game, but after completing some kind of possibly unrelated task, the plot kicks in and moves along, weird things happen, new and different characters emerge.  It's not a matter of presenting the player with an obvious 3 part puzzle, that he or she can finish in their own sweet time.  Why not do the same thing with narration or character dialogue---or has this all been done before and I'm just forgetting?

[Snarky]

The distinction you seem to really be grasping towards here really has nothing to do with first person and third person, it's about whether or not to use narration or just dialogue exclusively. There are several games that have "described settings and events in a literary or descriptive way" while sticking to first person (in addition to The Longest Journey, which has already been mentioned, Martian Memorandum comes to mind). "I yawned and blinked my eyes, struggling to stay awake" would be odd, but would it be any more odd than "You yawned and blinked your eyes, struggling to stay awake"?

There is really nothing to stop you from lapsing into narration at key points in the story, whether the narrator is first person or third person. The main issue is the tense: Present tense can be awkward, and doesn't leave much room for reflection. Personally, at least, I feel like narration in the present tense should give the reader the illusion that it could be composed in real time, which is a quite restrictive requirement. Past tense works better from a literary point of view, but conflicts with the present-ness of playing the game, it makes the player feel as if they are acting out something that has already happened. Some games are explicitly retrospective (MI2, TLJ, Overseer, Max Payne, Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, etc.) and well suited to narration in the past tense. It is a style choice that has a huge impact on the mood of your game, though.

I would quite like to get further into the head of the player character in some adventure games, and a look at their thoughts, whether in their own words or through another narrator, would be a good step towards that goal. More variety in the ways adventure games tell their stories is something we surely can all agree to support.

Edit: Hmmm... I'm a bit behind in this thread, and not really addressing the last posts very well. So: Yes, by restricting yourself to dialogue, you're losing some of the possibilities offered by narration. I think this is not really about "only getting it from your character's perspective," but more about getting other kinds of information, or just getting it presented in a different way. Of course, if think more carefully about it, you'll realize that even for instance Monkey Island was not without narration: "Deep in the Carribbean... Monkey Island" starts the game, and later there's a whole running joke about the description of LeChuck's underground port. Brief as narration goes, for sure, but there nonetheless.

I think the best examples of where narration would come in handy are nothing like "I yawned and blinked my eyes, struggling to stay awake." If what's being narrated is that straightforward, what you'll do instead is just show the character yawning, and the player will understand that they are struggling to stay awake. It's when the inner processes get more complex, and cannot be easily inferred, that narration really comes into its own.