In Resonance, I've put in a number of completely unnecessary dialog. I wasn't intending it to be unnecessary in the "God, why don't they ever stop talking!" way, but more in the "Oh nice, I can get a lot of extra information about the characters and plot if I want to take the time to do so" way.
The idea was, if you want to read through all these lines of dialog to flesh out the world and characters, you can. But I only make story-important dialog necessary. The rest can be skipped. So, if you're more interested in getting the gist of what's going on and getting back to the gameplay, you always have that option.
For example, in one early dialog, you have several options of things to ask about or "Wait quietly." Choosing to wait quietly ends the dialog and moves on to the gameplay. In another, you're talking on a train and one option "My stop is coming up." causes the dialog to end and, well, your stop to come up. The rest of the options in both these cases are completely superfluous, but should help the player's understanding of where the characters are coming from.
Later, there's a really big series of dialogs, many of which are the exposition fairy coming in and explaining some plot points. You get the info you need and are able to end the dialog. Or you can ask deeper questions to learn some things (like the quantum mechanics governing the plot's central MacGuffin). People don't need that extra info, but it's like I feel that I've gone through all the trouble of thinking of this shit so I want to give players access to it. :P
I thought it was nice to give people the option to get the info or skip it, but I've had a couple play testers and an IGF judge comment that these sections were too wordy. I agree that they would be if they weren't entirely optional, but maybe they're right. Maybe since we are trained to exhaust all dialog options no matter what, to an adventure gamer, these sections aren't optional at all. We're wired to be incapable of skipping them.
So my question is, are these sections of dialog a good thing? Would you skip them if you weren't interested or would you feel forced into going through them all? Is there a better way to do this? How's my hair?
Along the same lines, I have a number of optional puzzles in the game. These puzzles are often mathematical, logical, difficult, and/or time consuming. These puzzles express my guilty love for Myst-like puzzles, but as an allowance to players who don't like that kind of thing, I've made them optional. They offer access to bonus features, give you something that might make later puzzles a little easier, or just give you the satisfaction of solving them.
Same questions. Are these optional puzzles that are supposed to enrich the game actually a burden for back-broken adventure gamers who are trained completionists? If someone who hates Myst-alikes comes across a complex mechanical puzzle to get through a door, are they going to throw their hands up and quit the game, despite there being another way into the room that requires a more adventure-gamey (and fairly easy) solution?
Personally, I would play through all dialogue. I'd feel like I was missing something if I didn't. If it isn't worth exploring, why is it there at all?
I do appreciate that the question is more complex than that, but I'd probably react similar to your play testers. Except that I may have more patience with extended dialogue. I didn't even mind The Longest Journey much! (You need very good voice actors to pull that off, though.)
Regarding the optional puzzles, that may be a good idea. (Just keep in mind that most people won't realise that they are optional unless you write it on their noses.) I do however wonder about the logic of rewarding someone that's good at puzzles by making later puzzles easier. Shouldn't it be the other way around? Reward them by additional, or harder, puzzles if anything, or just let the puzzle solving be its own reward.
This is a lesson I learned the hard way!
As with most things, it depends. The one thing I always think about when adding or removing something is "does this get in the way of the fun?" Having lots of dialog options is very nice in an adventure game, but the only problem is that it can get very boring fast. And if the player just wants to get back to exploring, it can definitely get in the way of the fun.
Imagine seeing a film where two characters talk for several minutes and the camera never moves once. You'd get bored. So to stop you from being bored, they make sure to have different camera angles, close-ups, the characters moving, etc; in other words, they make stuff actually happen. Adventure games, especially indie games, don't have that luxury. It's like that hypothetical film. When adventure game characters are standing around talking, that's ALL that happens.
That's not to say lotsa dialog is bad. My new mantra is "short exchanges but lots more of them." By all means, have as many dialog exchanges as you want - but try and make each one short and snappy. A maximum of four or five lines, if possible. Obviously there are always exceptions, but if you're finding your testers getting bored in certain places, try cutting it down a bit. Especially if it's interrupting gameplay.
So you basically implemented an exit dialog option, but how exactly did you separate the essential (the ones that tell you how to solve puzzles or a code to a door etc.) parts/questions from the exposition and the "unnecessary" ones? Or is it up to the player?
Can't help thinking that people will miss something (or for example accidentally exit the dialog). I'm not saying it's a bad idea (far from it) but as you describe it, there might be a need for some caution/playtesting.
Personally I like to cover everything, so I'd probably read it through (especially if it's voiced). That's not to say, as Gilbert said, that it might get in the way of exploring and having fun. It's a similar thing to finding pieces of paper or books in adventure games, the ones that designers put text in - it's great as an option but sometimes gets tideous. It almost always draws that "don't tell it but show it", which in this case might provoke a need for animations (for example explaining science apparatus by showing it's blue pirints or dismatling it's model in a stylish animation).
Finding a balance is what I guess I'm saying, it's a mixed medium after all.
About the extra puzzles...if nicely implemented and if they're basically optional, they'll make the game, and the world it's in, richer.
Quote from: anian on Mon 14/06/2010 18:04:05
but how exactly did you separate the essential (the ones that tell you how to solve puzzles or a code to a door etc.) parts/questions from the exposition and the "unnecessary" ones? Or is it up to the player?
Can't help thinking that people will miss something (or for example accidentally exit the dialog). I'm not saying it's a bad idea (far from it) but as you describe it, there might be a need for some caution/playtesting.
Definitely, I've taken careful planning with these. It's usually something like
{Dialog with three important choices}
|
|
when finished
|
|
V
{Dialog with five non-important choices + end dialog option}
In another example, I have the player with lots of dialog choices, but once a few key, necessary options are hit upon, an event takes place that interrupts the dialog. These options can be returned to by talking to the chars involved later, but it is not necessary to do so.
But the general idea I get is that just having the options there makes them mandatory and I should be writing as such. This might mean cutting some of the character-background conversations that don't really have impact on the plot. Hmmm... I'm going to have to think this through.
How immersion-breaking would it be to have some kind of highlight for story-critical dialog options so players would know what they can skip?
Well, I can add a small comment on not-imporant dialog topics... From my point of view, player is often a bit (or rather) paranoid when he feels he can miss something, like extra info about future puzzles, or possible optional endings, etc.
Such player will not want to miss anything in dialog, and since optional dialogs won't be actually containing anything useful (for solving the game), he will become annoyed.
The most rough solution here would be to visually mark non-important dialog options (like with different font colour); however, OTOH, this may be thought as spoiler.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 14/06/2010 20:26:33
How immersion-breaking would it be to have some kind of highlight for story-critical dialog options so players would know what they can skip?
I think the Mass Effect games did this quite nicely by having the important options on the "top level" of the dialog and any extra chatter under an option called "Investigate". If the player just wants to keep the story going, he doesn't have the temptation of seeing what the extra topics are about, so it's much easier to dismiss them. And it shouldn't get in the way of players who are interested in background information.
On the topic of Mass Effect, I started playing it for about 30 minutes yesterday, and I don't know if it's me, but games are just too demanding these days--I'll try to keep this on topic, I promise. The tutorial screens themselves have the player navigate what seems like 5 sublevels of interface screens to accomplish one tutorial point and even then, I'm still lost and don't know how to get back.
On the topic of dialog, I'm starting to believe more in short, but sweet. As a kid, I always had time to click through every option, listen to every quip, and still have plenty of time to waste away getting stuck on puzzles. However, being a more civilized person (hopefully), I no longer have the time to let games drag me off into their expository world unless I'm sure that it's worth my time. In the case of Mass Effect (at least from the first 30 minutes), I didn't care about this world, or these characters yet. Why should I pursue a dialog topic to discover what the planet of Eden Prime is about? Sure, I can skip it, but since it's there I feel obligated to take in this information lest I later find out it becomes useful.
Perhaps if there was a way to subtly feed the player all the important information into the non-skippable dialogs as succinctly as possible, much in the same way of a film (less talk--more action), then the player could receive all the necessary information without having to feel that he or she has missed anything. I'm sure you're doing this already, but I feel that if you can give the player all he or she needs to know in the least amount of words possible, that's the best solution. Besides, if you leave certain things up to the player's imagination, that can make the world all more rich and mysterious (with some exceptions, of course).
Edit: It's kind of what is embodied in this excellent talk "Less Talk More Rock" http://boingboing.net/features/morerock.html
Yeah, I'm down with being snappy in the dialog. I'm the same way with not having enough time to bother with excessive dialog in games. I thought that having it there as a choice would make it worth it for some.
I am planning on going through and pruning quite a bit, but there's still a lot of background on these characters and some game-world info that I'd like the player to have access to. No matter how snappy the dialog is, just having the not-necessary-to-understand-the-story conversations in the game as options adds a lot of words that some players might not want but feel obligated to go through anyways.
So, is it better to have these options even though they add more words, or to not have the options even though you loose the choice of getting a deeper understanding of the game world and its characters? A solution where all this extra info is imparted to the players without adding to the amount of text the player has the "option" (which translates to adventure gamers as "obligation") to read, just isn't possible.
I'm hoping I can find a good way to keep those enrichment topics without making them seem like they're A) mandatory and/or B) getting in the way of gameplay.
I haven't played Mass Effect, but I do have dialogs that contain all the important stuff plus one "More about ..." option which leads to a dialog tree of unnecessary "enrichment" topics. Perhaps relying on that tool more consistently can make it clearer that these are optional avenues of discussion.
The other alternative I'm considering is hiding most of this dialog behind STM/LTM interactions, which people following Res's development will understand. The player will have to specifically be seeking out the information to find it. It will be more like solving a puzzle to get at the dialog, and people who aren't curious about said information won't even know the "puzzle" is there. It's hard to do this in some points, though.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 14/06/2010 20:26:33
Definitely, I've taken careful planning with these. It's usually something like
{Dialog with three important choices}
|
when finished
|
V
{Dialog with five non-important choices + end dialog option}
Ah, ok, this sounds fine to me.
Actually ME style came to my mind as well. Just an Investigate (sometimes it's a regular sentence that later just spreads into more options), More about..., or any other variation is less obtrusive than different colors of topics in dialog tree or similar. And even if the player doesn't read the manual or tips or other instructions, after a few encounters player will learn or get use to this divide.
Left is the "investigate" or more exposition parts, while on the right are action, discussion and/or dialog ending lines
http://admintell.napco.com/ee/images/uploads/gamertell/masseffect_screen75.jpg
http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/982/982609/mass-effect-review-20071118101316811_640w_1242252680.jpg
Aditionally (and I'm thankfull for this cause by options of lines intention is not always clear), on the right dialog options (3) go from good guy at the top, middle ground in the middle and bad/evil options at the bottom
http://nukoda.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/mass-effect-choices.jpg
There are also colored lines (blue and red) when you have high enough stats to do extra good or evil...but that's just a bonus to the discussion.
EDIT: or those STM/LTM interactions. In any case it's just has to be reasonably clear, someone will complain in any case.
If a part of dialog was purely optional and I was even aware of the fact, I'd still feel like I missed something not hearing it out.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 14/06/2010 22:04:54
The other alternative I'm considering is hiding most of this dialog behind STM/LTM interactions, which people following Res's development will understand. The player will have to specifically be seeking out the information to find it. It will be more like solving a puzzle to get at the dialog, and people who aren't curious about said information won't even know the "puzzle" is there. It's hard to do this in some points, though.
I think this is the best possible solution.
Just the other day I foolishly got into a discussion with a fan of The Longest Journey about the (lack of) conversational pacing in said game. Frankly I gave up when I was basically told "if you don't like it you can just skip past it", which in my opinion is equivalent of informing someone complaining that a film is too long that no, the length is perfect and they should just learn to use the fast-forward button.
There's no accounting for taste, and there are certainly audiences who enjoy "deep" conversations in adventure games. What I'm wondering though, is whether they would miss them if they weren't there. My issue with lengthy dialog isn't so much a matter of them being boring, though they often turn out that way. In fact, one of the core strength of interactive media is precisely that the player can choose to what degree he wants to explore tangential subplots or the far reaches of the game world.
Rather, the problem as I see it, is that many designers use it as an excuse to dump every single bit of character backstory and history of the game's setting from their design document onto the player. Now, a lot of gamers would claim that these details contribute to the richness of the game world, but I would argue the opposite. Remember the dialog exchange in Star Wars where Obi-Wan tells Luke that he fought with his father in the Clone Wars? No explanation is given, it's a throwaway line hinting at a world existing before and beyond the scope of the film. Now, imagine that this was an adventure game, and that Obi-Wan's remark unlocked the dialog topic "Tell me more about the Clone Wars". You click it of course, and the aging Jedi spends the next 10-15 minutes recounting the plot of Attack of the Clones. Did this improve the story in any way, or just remove any sense of mystery while providing the writer an opportunity to flaunt his obsessive attention to detail?
Less isn't necessarily more, but if it gets the job done there's really no reason to pad it out and possibly disrupt the pace of the overarching narrative. Another thing to keep in mind, is that the dialog options should represent the focus and intent of the player character, not the curiosity of the player. Even one of my favorite games, Gabriel Knight: Sins of the Father, made me wonder why Gabe was constantly asking random people to "Tell me about yourself" or "What do you know about New Orleans" - Gabe's profession as a writer does lend some credibility to it, but the professor who more or less tells him "I don't see how that's any of your business" immediately gained my respect.
So, in brief, by all means do add optional depth - it is the privilege of interactive fiction writers. But be selective about it, and make sure that it doesn't hurt the flow of the narrative (especially if you're trying to create a sense of urgency in the main storyline) and doesn't seem out of character, neither for the player character asking the question or the NPC answering it.
I wouldn't mind at all, if there was some sort of text highlighting to suggest which topics were crucial. Possibly add an intermediate state between the traditional text coloring of unasked and exhausted topics, where the essential information has been given but still further details to obtain for those so inclined.
Quote from: Ascovel on Mon 14/06/2010 22:46:51Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 14/06/2010 22:04:54The other alternative I'm considering is hiding most of this dialog behind STM/LTM interactions, which people following Res's development will understand. The player will have to specifically be seeking out the information to find it. It will be more like solving a puzzle to get at the dialog, and people who aren't curious about said information won't even know the "puzzle" is there. It's hard to do this in some points, though.
I think this is the best possible solution.
I agree, and I was actually puzzled that Vince didn't mention the memory interface at all in his first post. I would think this kind of optional dialog to be an inherent part of the flexibility and transparency of such a system, even if you may have to force it a little to allow for more abstract topics - i.e. a book on quantum physics may represent the topic rather than that specific book itself.
Quote from: GarageGothic on Tue 15/06/2010 00:01:43
Rather, the problem as I see it, is that many designers use it as an excuse to dump every single bit of character backstory and history of the game's setting from their design document onto the player. Now, a lot of gamers would claim that these details contribute to the richness of the game world, but I would argue the opposite. Remember the dialog exchange in Star Wars where Obi-Wan tells Luke that he fought with his father in the Clone Wars? No explanation is given, it's a throwaway line hinting at a world existing before and beyond the scope of the film. Now, imagine that this was an adventure game, and that Obi-Wan's remark unlocked the dialog topic "Tell me more about the Clone Wars". You click it of course, and the aging Jedi spends the next 10-15 minutes recounting the plot of Attack of the Clones. Did this improve the story in any way, or just remove any sense of mystery while providing the writer an opportunity to flaunt his obsessive attention to detail?
Exactly.
Quote
Quote from: Ascovel on Mon 14/06/2010 22:46:51Quote from: Vince Twelve on Mon 14/06/2010 22:04:54The other alternative I'm considering is hiding most of this dialog behind STM/LTM interactions, which people following Res's development will understand. The player will have to specifically be seeking out the information to find it. It will be more like solving a puzzle to get at the dialog, and people who aren't curious about said information won't even know the "puzzle" is there. It's hard to do this in some points, though.
I think this is the best possible solution.
I agree, and I was actually puzzled that Vince didn't mention the memory interface at all in his first post. I would think this kind of optional dialog to be an inherent part of the flexibility and transparency of such a system, even if you may have to force it a little to allow for more abstract topics - i.e. a book on quantum physics may represent the topic rather than that specific book itself.
I think cases where players specifically choose to seek out further information, rather than have the information laid out in front of them and they just choose to read it or not, are better for expository dumps (excuse the negative connotation). That way, only players who even want to explore the world are even presented with the option of choosing it or not, removing the obligatory vs. optional conundrum. So, I would too agree that your (Vince's) last idea would be a good solution.
Quote from: Vince TwelveSo, is it better to have these options even though they add more words, or to not have the options even though you loose the choice of getting a deeper understanding of the game world and its characters?
I'm fairly new around these parts and to adventure gaming in general so i'm not too put off by reams of dialogue. I actually savour it: being able to walk up to characters and while away the hours (okay, minutes!) exploring their personalities and further expanding the story still gives me a buzz. For me, the gameworld would be quite shallow without this extra depth. I love seeing how different characters interact or how the main character describes the world around him/her.
Quote from: GarageGothicRather, the problem as I see it, is that many designers use it as an excuse to dump every single bit of character backstory and history of the game's setting from their design document onto the player.
Very true, and one of the first things they flag up when you do writing classes. I'm the kind of person who appreciates that stuff, but I do agree that you can sometimes get away with just suggesting rather than filling out all that extra info. Personally though, I'd like it to be there if I happen to look for it.
Just make it optional - especially if I have to play through again and I don't want to sit through all the dialogue again - so yeah, you need to make it clear to the player what can be skipped. Consistent placement or colour is probably the easiest way to go, although colour is a little too jarring for my liking. Your suggested method of introducing new options after the important ones is nice. I'm sure some gamers would still feel the compulsion to go through all these optional branches, but I don't think that's such an issue (the content should lead them to realise that the branches are consistently optional). Oh and I like your train stop method - it's plausible and neat.
Quote from: Vince TwelveThe other alternative I'm considering is hiding most of this dialog behind STM/LTM interactions, which people following Res's development will understand. The player will have to specifically be seeking out the information to find it.
I'd also like to see the split centred around the STM/LTM system. It's already looking really exciting, and maybe if it's so central to the game, players will find using it for dialogue quite natural.
Heh, sorry my rambling probably hasn't helped much. It's definately an important decision, you just have to find the balance. Both Dave and Joshua give good guidance: cutting whatever isn't fun and subtly feeding the player information, allowing their imagination to fill in the details. Showing not telling.
I agree with an earlier comment about the paranoia of adventure gamers - we tend to think that every piece of dialogue is a potential clue. I can't say much but I think the answer is to segregate vital- and non-vital-dialogue as much as possible in a way that will be clear to players. Obviously it's hard to keep the fourth wall intact in that case, but try and find the right balance.
For some reason this conversation reminds me of Gilbert Goodmate and the Mushroom of Phungoria, uber-obscure indy title of yester-decade, which got quite a few complaints for featuring too much dialogue. Although it did indeed have an ungodly amount in there, I found it fairly easy to work out which bits were plot-relevant and which were just window dressing and it served to keep me entertained when I got stuck with the puzzles. (Up to a point, where puzzles became ridiculous, as often happens)
I think put as much of it as possible in STM and LTM. Then sprinkle the occasional optional topic in with the normals, but don't provide reams of extra information in any given exchange, and when you do, try to make it feel natural for the character to ask, and also natural for the character to neglect to ask.
I would avoid the "More options..." type approach. It pushes the interface into the player's face a bit, and unless you have a ton of optional topics most of the time (which you don't want), it will feel a little redundant. Also in many cases, it won't deter people who feel compelled to read everything you set in front of them, so it doesn't really solve the problem.
If you do want to indicate extra topics, I would maybe use italics, rather than highlights or recolors. I think italicizing is one of the least intrusive things you can do to text. I guess you might also try parentheses? They carry a connotation of extra-ness already.
In any case, I wouldn't do away with ALL extra dialogue. If you do that, then you may as well go the King's Quest route and forego dialogue trees altogether. Just make sure it belongs in the exchange you are putting it in, and I don't see anyone complaining too much, who wouldn't anyway.
In addition to the worry about missing important game information, another reason a player might feel compelled to cover all conversation topics is so the story will "play right" and make sense. I don't know how widespread this is, but when I play an adventure game I try to maintain some suspension of disbelief by attempting to act out the story in the way it seems the writer intended. For example, if I'm replaying a game I've played before, I'll make sure to hear a conversation that gives a hint to a puzzle before I solve the puzzle. I might even skip past all the dialog, but the important thing is that the character has heard it in this playthrough.
In the stakeout scene in the Resonance demo, there was an option to skip past the dialog, but the fact that it was there made it seem like your intention was that the two cops would be chatting with each other. So in this case, the "right" way to play was to trigger it.
I have to say that in my view there shouldn't be any conversation segments whose only purpose is to convey backstory that isn't relevant to the game. If there are optional topics, they should have some entertainment value in themselves (jokes, additional drama or atmosphere, really good writing, etc.) to make them worth a player's time.
I also agree that it's better to scatter backstory around the game world and access it through the STM/LTM gameplay mechanic than to stick it in conversations.
Lesson learned. I had been approaching a lot of the design of Resonance with the belief that more options and choices for the player is almost always good. While that probably holds for gameplay and puzzles, I need to back away from it with dialog.
Dialog has always been a sticking point for me in this game. It slows me down so much trying to figure out the best way to structure conversations. I will be editing a bunch of dialogs to hide these background information topics behind STM/LTM options where possible. That should work well. I think there will be some players interested enough in the world and characters to actively seek them out. And those who do, will hopefully feel more engrossed in the story.
Thanks for the opinions guys!
QuoteI have to say that in my view there shouldn't be any conversation segments whose only purpose is to convey backstory that isn't relevant to the game.
But isn't it relevant to the game to know who the characters are, personality-wise, and where they're coming from, emotionally, etc?
You could always try a "Director's Cut" slider or something. Trim down the dialog to the game essential stuff for people who want a less talky version, but make it all available for people who like long conversations that make the world feel bigger (like me). I've started doing it with my games and it seems to have worked well enough.
Just a thought.
My idea would be to use a parser system for dialogues. This way the player can ask about all the things he is interested in und doesn`t get bothered by too many dialogue options he has to click trough in LucasArts-styled dialogs. I think about making my own game playable completely without a mouse, but with a parser system instead.
@Ponch: Heh, yeah, Anna had something like that. Though I always thought being overwritten was one of the best features of that game. ;)
@MMMorshew: I like parser systems, my problem would be that I would then have to write a million more dialogs since the possibilities would be endless and I still wouldn't get all the things that a player might think to type in. But yeah, that kind of interface can be awesome when well handled. I'm just not sure I could handle it!
Having thought about this for quite a while:
The basic principle of your dialog trees seems to convey those essential information and convos in an unobtrusive way, without rubbing them in. Very nice. Much better, in my opinion, than highlighting anything in different colors.
(Personally, I always feel slightly 'offended'/ disappointed, in any medium, if the creator feels the need to state the obvious or spell out a punchline/bon mots/connotations)
Having said that, obviously I can't generalize on data I don't have - didn't know there was demo of Resonance
(may i ask if you still have one? ;D :-[)
However, a thought concerning optional dialog:
The adventure gamer's paranoia aside, I wager this optional conversation options will be chosen by players (like me) who tend to appreciate this additional quality of storytelling.
How about rewarding those players in a way, that it opens up convos with other characters in-game (again, purely optional ones)!?
This way people who don't want to indulge in this kind of deep conversation wouldn't be put off!
At the same time, those who appreciate a dense narrational structure and a fleshed out story, can get their gratification by 'actively' searching for it.
This way it would feel less like a compulsive necessity to exhaust ALL dialog options, but rather a hunt for clues and further info instead.
Plus, you can spread (additional) information over several different characters in an interactive manner, which makes it less obvious and overwhelming!
Optional puzzles:
The possibility to circumvent those brainy puzzles by a more 'adventure gamy' approach, seems like a very good feature, satisfying 'both worlds'
of players. At the same time though, technical puzzles, especially those you describe, are a very, very fine line in my book.
If they are not very well implemented and narratively justified (don't get me wrong - I have no fear on your part there) they tend to break this suspension of disbelieve in a split second.
Leaving the player with this nasty 'in your face' kind of feel, with single elements of "bits 'n bytes of the game author's attempt to manipulate, rather than an overall story arc.
For me the chance of this to happen seems to be exponentially increased if I'm able to skip a puzzle - pure
psychology I guess!
sorry for rambling...seem to have lost my 'golden thread' somewhere in the last paragraph, gonna go get it now...bye :P
Quote from: Tramponline on Tue 15/06/2010 16:48:04
Having said that, obviously I can't generalize on data I don't have - didn't know there was demo of Resonance
(may i ask if you still have one? ;D :-[)
It wasn't really a demo, but a "playable sample". Just one room from early in the game with a couple puzzles given to people who donated to the project via Kickstarter. And you can still get your hands on it by donating via Paypal (http://xiigames.com/2010/06/08/help-support-resonance-again/)! [/pimping]
Oh, ok. Really, I would. I'm not tight usually - but it IS kind of tight right now. Have 200 bucks left till I find a job.
I just thought, you know, maybe, kind of, since I contributed those two fonts for Resonance, it might
garner me a small first look :-[...somehow...perhaps... *awkwardly shuffles feet, looks to the ground :P*
Oh, yeah, totally! I forgot your AGS forum name! Hi Jochen! You get the whole shebang! I'll email it to you now!
Text parser sounds good in theory. I intended to use one in one of my semi-abandoned projects and I thought it would serve as a good way to make sure people could get at backstory if they wanted to and otherwise leave it alone. Then I played A Second Face, though. It put the system to good use, but what I found myself doing was writing down a list of everything that looked remotely like a keyword and then compulsively running through that list with every character in the game, to make sure I didn't miss anything important. So I'm not sure that one will solve the adventure gamer's compulsion problem.
What you really need to do is deter the player, so that they know that they will have to DIG for the information. That's the advantage of hiding stuff in STM (I assume that people will still try every LTM on everyone, anyway), because it means navigating the world and looking for obscure objects to see what people say about them. It is too much for anyone who isn't truly dedicated to the task. The flip side to this, is that this can't be necessary information to get more or less full enjoyment from the story. It's a great place for hiding obtuse physics talk or back story minutiae, but you need to make sure that players who skip that step are still getting a full story--not a bare bones or functionally coherent story. Otherwise the adventure gamers are being perfectly reasonable in their compulsivity, because they ARE missing something important, even if it doesn't stop them from finishing.
So for the most part, make sure there is an inverse relationship between peripherality of information and proximity to the main plot. If it is pivotal, make it non-optional, if it is basically part of the story, but non-pivotal, make it an optional part of the canon dialogue. If it is particularly telling backstory, put it in LTM for people to pursue on their own time (but don't spell all of it out here, because it kills the mystery), and if it is just a detail that pads the world and provides only nominal insight, put it in STM or dump it. Obviously don't use that as a hard and fast rule, but it seems like a workable guideline.
That is what I think at this second.
Nothing to really add, except that this thread got me thinking seriously about the dialog in some of my previous work. It inspired me to write a blog entry (http://nygamedev.blogspot.com/2010/06/game-talk.html) on the subject of dialogs in games, as well as do a bit of practice surgery on some of my old dialog exchanges.
QuoteThen I played A Second Face, though. It put the system to good use, but what I found myself doing was writing down a list of everything that looked remotely like a keyword and then compulsively running through that list with every character in the game, to make sure I didn't miss anything important. So I'm not sure that one will solve the adventure gamer's compulsion problem.
Haha, glad to see I'm not the only one who did that.
Parsers have to be well implemented. When I played the Shiva, after I finally managed to get the password of the computer, I totally forgot the name of the guy I was supposed to look up. And there was no way to find it again (afaik). I had to save the game, re-watch the intro scene and then load the game again.
So if you are doing a parser game, you have to take care that no keywords are only mentioned once or so.
Quote from: Vince Twelve on Tue 15/06/2010 15:15:12
QuoteI have to say that in my view there shouldn't be any conversation segments whose only purpose is to convey backstory that isn't relevant to the game.
But isn't it relevant to the game to know who the characters are, personality-wise, and where they're coming from, emotionally, etc?
Well, this is all personal opinion, of course. YMMV.
We don't need to know everything. We don't need to know why Kerner decided to become a nazi, or if Trilby is straight or gay, or what drove Linus Bruckman insane (at least not within that game). Suggestions and deliberate omissions are often more interesting than straight-out explanations, particularly when they're conveyed through drama-free "so, tell me something about yourself" dialogue. I think that makes your game world flatter, not richer.
If it's important to the game (the puzzles or the story), then it needs to be communicated in the core content. To get a handle on the characters you have not just what they say in conversations, but how they say it, plus how they look, how they sound, how they move, how they respond to their environments, potentially the things they own and the places they inhabit, and so on. That should probably be enough to tell us all we need to know.
If you feel you want to get across some particular piece of characterization (e.g. this character is secretly in love with that character, this other character has a drug habit, this character hates her job, ...), I think you can almost always do it in just a couple of lines, as part of some other interaction. No need for an extended back-and-forth about it.
You're the author. It's your job to figure out what to tell players,
and what to leave out, to make the experience as entertaining as possible. Don't flesh out backstory for the sake of it: if it's in there it should be because it really is enjoyable to hear about in its own right, or really adds some important dimension to the story. (For example, revealing a twist in the background info later in the game, after we think we know the characters and the world, can be interesting in itself even if not directly relevant; a good joke is its own motivation, etc.)
Finally, there's one reason I can think of to put in "trivia" lines in conversations: When the player is going to be playing a certain section for a while, and might go back and talk to the same character multiple times. If there is something new to say each time, even if it's not important, it can make the situation seem less static and contrived.
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 16/06/2010 14:24:34
Finally, there's one reason I can think of to put in "trivia" lines in conversations: When the player is going to be playing a certain section for a while, and might go back and talk to the same character multiple times. If there is something new to say each time, even if it's not important, it can make the situation seem less static and contrived.
Now that's a good point you have mentioned. I hate it, when I want to talk to a person about task B I have to do and the only option I can talk about is about task A that I've already completed. I know it is a lot of coding to do, but it's definitely worth it (positive example: Nelly Cootalot).
Snarky, all points right on target, as usual.
And just to be clear, I've never been on the fence about whether dialog should be loquacious and overstuffed (though I may have been guilty of making it so :=) or trim and snappy, but was mainly enquiring about whether or not having the option to ask such background questions was doing more harm than good. And the answer is pretty unanimous!
For me, all these suggestons people are coming up with for somehow separating the important dialogue from the background/unessential information would just make things too complicated, both for the player and for yourself designing the game.
I'm also a completionist who likes to exhaust every conversation, but that doesn't mean I don't sometimes find it boring to do so. For me, the best approach would be to simply take a deep breath and cut some of it out. Who was it who said a good writer must learn to kill his darlings?
Of course, you don't have to kill them entirely. Instead of somehow disguising the extra information or making the player dig for it within the game, why not include the background information outside the game. Many games include character bios and background information as part of the game manual. I think you could make a really neat booklet containing anything that you think is interesting but that might not be entirely necessary to everyone playing the game.
It would be a really cool addition if it comes on paper shipped with the discs, or as a PDF for digital downloads. And it saves you from having to provide players with the trim vs. bloat option every time they open a dialogue.
My comments here probably sound harsher than intended. I do think over-explaining and being too much in love with the backstory (at least for my tastes) are common flaws in ambitious amateur/indie adventure games, but I also don't think your games to date have had that problem, Vince (there's a ton of conversation in Anna, of course, but it seemed like a core part of the experience). Even though I think the conversations in the Resonance snippet could be streamlined a bit, it wasn't a huge problem or anything. I have a lot of confidence that you will find a good balance and design solution on this, and I look forward to Resonance being finished some time in the foreseeable future.
Also, this is something reasonable people can very easily disagree about, just like some prefer games that are tightly focused on a single path of progression, while others like ones that are more open and full of possible digressions. I'm a bit scared of us giving you our opinions and you changing the game based on it; since it's a commercial title - and who knows whether our preferences are what the market wants?
Here's my no-shades-of-grey Rorschach-from-Watchmen style base viewpoint:
Adventure Gaming is not roleplaying; Adventure protagonists are in character and they're working towards ONE, SPECIFIC goal and the dialogue options you give them to say need to reflect that because seeing a protagonist without a goal is boring and, in gameplay terms, will lead to a lot of red herrings.
Obviously that's a rule made to be broken; it could very well be interesting and entertaining to hear how the mummy-powered spaceship generator works or why the gangster loves that toy bunny he keeps under his hat so much or where the snake does his hair. It's a matter of using one's discretion.
Personally I'm a fan of getting superfluous information across to the player for the author's self indulgence but not so they know it's slowing down their gameplay. I guess that means expressing stuff by any means but a direct question and answer; clues in the background, character's going off topic while you're trying to get them to tell you what you need to know, just a general 'feeling' in how a character talks of their personal story even if it's not explicitly stated.
Of course; all that takes hella-good writing to pull off so if you're not up to the challenge; we'll understand...
(Coward)
Quote from: Snarky on Wed 16/06/2010 22:00:49
I'm a bit scared of us giving you our opinions and you changing the game based on it; since it's a commercial title - and who knows whether our preferences are what the market wants?
Mostly it's based on player feedback. But the pretty singular voice on the subject from people here didn't hurt. Besides, I'm a lot happier with these conversations now. I've taken four of the wordier dialogs and stripped out a lot of bloat (but left some of my favorite bloat in :=). Then I separated some of the more backgroundey conversations into LTM/STM convos and the whole thing is pretty streamlined now. I'll need to run it by playtesters, but I like it as it is right now better than I did before, I think. (It'll also be easier for voice acting!)
Quote from: Eggie on Thu 17/06/2010 14:21:58
Obviously that's a rule made to be broken; it could very well be interesting and entertaining to hear how the mummy-powered spaceship generator works or why the gangster loves that toy bunny he keeps under his hat so much or where the snake does his hair.
Have you been reading my script?
Games are not movies. In a game, player is not just a spectator, he is an integral part of the process. The player contibutes to the game, and not in a Marcel Duchamp way (http://squallyshowers.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/marcel-duchamp.jpg), he actually shapes his own expierence. And I think that's very important, so trying to streamline a game to a more linear and pre-determined shape (a very popular mainstream approach nowadays) may sometimes turn out to be a mistake.
Especially if the game is not so much about the story or the characters, as it is about the unique world, and about the concepts and ideas within it. And Resonance seems to fall into that category.
Being able to get more information about the background of the world and characters, and being able to choose not to - that's something only a game can do, and I think that's one of the reasons why games are so good at sci-fi genre in general.
Cutting everything that player doesn't need to know means taking the mystery out, because the player (and the protagonist) shouldn't be able to tell between what they need to know, and what will prove to be of no practical use whatsoever. That's why I feel that Mass Effect-like interface, where you are told what's 'important' and what's just an 'extra' doesn't really work - you stop caring really fast, because you know that it won't matter.
Of course, it's bad to put in too much (that's what "too much" means), and nothing is as impotant as a good balance and rhythm. And every game should have it's own ratio of 'important' and 'additional', just try to imagine what The Longest Journey would've been like, if it didn't have tons of unnecessary dialog. Now try adding lots of explanations in The Dig.
The thing you have to decide is whether to show the player the universe you've created, or make him figure it out by himself, rely on player's imagination and senses, or on his logic and intelligence. Or both. And in what proportions. And... well, you get the gist. :)
As for the compulsive adventure game completionist syndrome (CAGCS?) - as I said earlier, the player has a say in what he gets from the game, and if he(she/it) spoils the experience for himself(herself/itself) - that's partly his(etc.) own responsibility.
At the end of the day, you should just make the game you'd want to play, because then at least one person will like it. :)
Whoa, so a lot of you guys expect an adventure gamer to have patience to read through everything but no wit to determine what's important for them? It's a rather bad adventure game that gamer would be playing if the only thing they need to figure out is how use one item on another. And still I don't see what's wrong with saying 'No, I don't care for your stupid pipe' and then realizing you have a puzzle with that pipe and returning back to the NPC and telling him/her 'Okay, tell me more about your pipe, I want to know everything about this wonderful piece of equipment, especially its role in the backstory of our world'. The good adventure games are about thinking your way out of a situation and interactivity. So I say don't deprive them from either interactivity or necessity to think over stuff.
I mean seriously, of course inserting only worthy stuff and inserting it smart enough not to hurt the narrative is important and I agree with folks who mentioned that, Snarky for one. But you guys are just pitying a hypothetical dumb ogre who is playing your game and saying 'Duuuuuuh, you made me talk uniteresting unimportant silly conversation topic, i hate you for that :'( ' here.
Yet that's how it is. In a FPS the moment they find ammo in a crate, most players will smash every other crates in the game, just in case there's more in another. If you put a clue, develop the plot, trigger an event or tell a joke in a conversation, most adventure gamers will read them all, just in case it happens again.
I don't think there's any right answer. Different players like different kinds of things. Game developers can choose to cater to one of the points of views or compromise to give something for everyone. I think the compromise discussed above is a good one, keeping the important information in the spotlight while still giving extra enrichment information to those who would seek it out. The compromise doesn't seem to be much of a sacrifice for either side, and should benefit most. It doesn't need to be a line in the sand, my-side-your-side kind of thing.
I agree with you Vince, and blueskirt said the best it could be said IMHO. I usually don't like the dialogs, but if the amount is similar to Discworld Noir, nobody should have any troubles,at any case, don't start off with much dialog, and get a momentum and pace at increasing the dialogs overtime to the amount you want to reach.
I prefer the wordy approach to dialog because normal people don't have daily conversations like 'Where is the Library?' 'It is south', although this type of approach is useful to point out specific character traits like an old man who doesn't like to talk and on the other end of the spectrum a teenage girl who just can't keep her mouth shut. If you take into account the nature of the character speaking and adjust the quantity and language of the dialogue to match you really can't go wrong. It's the games where everyone talks the same without any individual 'voice' that really bug me.
As far as puzzles go, if you are making the epic challenge ones all optional then that does away with any potential complaints, really. If people find them too hard they move on and are not significantly worse off for it, while people who like being challenged will stick with it and reap whatever small reward it offers. Perhaps in the confirmation to skip it could give a warning that they may miss some informative back story, but I wouldn't go much farther than that.
Quote from: ProgZmax on Mon 21/06/2010 06:12:34
As far as puzzles go, if you are making the epic challenge ones all optional then that does away with any potential complaints, really. If people find them too hard they move on and are not significantly worse off for it, while people who like being challenged will stick with it and reap whatever small reward it offers.
The thing with that is that some gamers like me do like to do all the puzzles, but also prefer (expect even) all the puzzles to actually progess the game in some way. I'd rather be rewarded with the unlocking of a door into an important room than with a bit of extra information.
I don't mind getting my extra background information from lying-around diaries and old newspaper clippings. I know that's a bit cliché but it's kind of adventure game staple. Maybe theres a reason for that.
You will have to excuse me not reading through this thread in detail but I like the sound of everything in your intro. Too much dialogue gets on my nerves but the option to skip it or, if I'm interested at that point, learn some more about the story and characters is a great idea.
With the dialogue, I've tried to do the same thing with TLG but instead through having quite a few incidental characters.
Hi there, I wanted to say a thing I think.
My girlfriend Jess and I were talking about this and one thing that came up that I wanted to mention is that in typical adventure games with dialog trees there is the game play mechanic of "exhausting all dialog options". The first thing you do when you are stuck before trying all inventory objects on each other and then all inventory objects on every hot spot is go back through and make sure you've spoken to everyone until there is nothing left to say.
Therefor there are no optional dialog trees as soon as someone gets stuck in an adventure game.
That is my main point, the rest of this dialog is optional:
While we were talking I started seeing all characters as treasure chests. Say you're playing a game and you walk into a room and there are 3 treasure chests, you run up to each one and open them and search them and gold comes out! WOO! Gold! However the door is locked and won't open... Hmm, can I push the door open... Nope... I already searched the treasure chests and no key came out. Let me check a walkthrough... Apparently I am supposed to keep searching the treasure chest until the key comes out. Why would I do that?
The main reason we exhaust dialog options is because we are trained to play adventure games that way. Every time you walk into a new room and there are things that can be talked with you are trained to walk up to each one and talk to it until it stops talking back. I question if this is a good thing.
In no way do I choose to invoke the idea of realism "In the real world people wouldn't talk to you if you just walked up to them!"* but I do see it as a direct halting of game play. What little game play there is in adventure games is diluted by dialog and walking around. While I won't get into my concerns with walking in adventure games I think that dialog is a great way to tell the player a lot of things while they stare at a static screen and read the text on the screen faster than the voice actor can say it. It is also a great way to bore the player**.
When I walk into a room in an adventure game and there are 3 treasure chests NPCs standing there I cringe. I am going to have to exhaust the dialog options on each one of these NPCs in order to continue with the game. There is no game play during this time, just exposition. I don't even get to steer the conversation because the conversation is repeatable until I have exhausted it. I thought I was going to be solving puzzles and tricking security cameras and stealing evidence from a gangster with a stuffed bunny under his hat but instead I am reading dialog about how a man (that just wants a glass of water so he will give me his knife) feels about the city he lives in. And then I will have to do it all over again with the woman selling flowers on the street and then the vegetable cart man.
While it is easy to throw this out there and think you've solved someone's problems... Here it is, "Show, don't tell." I know I know, all your problems are solved you're welcome!
Also, to speak on this really quickly "People don't need that extra info, but it's like I feel that I've gone through all the trouble of thinking of this shit so I want to give players access to it." Man ain't that the truth. This is something I struggle with in story telling and it's VERY easy for me to say to someone else "It's not necessary, cut it. You spent time thinking of it because you needed to to develop the world in your head, the player does not need it." but if someone tried to tell me that I'd politely say thank you and insist in my head that if ONLY THEY KNEW how cool it all was they'd WANT to read it. So in that case I guess make it mandatory?
Eric
* though I do disagree with Progz, if I asked someone in the real world where the library is they would more often than not just say "over there". If I asked Jess or my mom where the library is she'd say the same thing. If I asked a more meaningful question like "Do you remember your first time going to a library?" I would expect more, but anyway
** me
From a personal point of view, I hate sitting through a long dialog sequence. I want to know what I need to know and as soon as possible. Good voice acting helps with longer sequences, but most of the exposition seems somewhat irrelevant.
It would be different if it were a fully animated cutscene, but with the budget and limitations of most indie devs, it's mostly impossible.
I quite enjoyed the way they exposed the backstory in Batman: Arkham Asylum and Bioshock, or even Assassin's Creed 2. In Batman, you could collect optional audio tape interviews of all the bad guys. It would reveal some of their backstory and give an insight into their personality. In Bioshock, it was once again a collecting mechanic, and it would do a similar thing in terms of backstory exposition. Assassin's Creed 2 was more of a central database which you could access at relevant times in the world.
This mechanic works because it is optional, it feeds on the players impulses to collect everything and get 100% completion. They don't need to get this information and it is presented to the player as a bonus for finding them.
As for having the optional dialog integrated into dialog trees, as Eric says, any seasoned player, if they get stuck, will exhaust all options.
I personally can't stand audiologs/diaries/spare notes lying around on the floor because it seems like lazy exposition to me. They also seem pretty unrealistic; I'm no scientist/conspiracy member/splicer/assassin, but neither I nor anyone I know records secrets for the seemingly sole reason of other people finding them next to my mutilated corpse, though I have considered starting.
I prefer visual storytelling to both diaries and overly long dialogs. I admire brevity and the ability to convey vital details of the story very succinctly. Words simply aren't the best way to tell me a story; if they were, I'd read a book instead. Of course, if the story is interesting and/or well-written enough, I'll eat up extra dialog like Mr. Creosote.
I started playing Broken Sword last week and I must say, that game is immensely boring! I don't want to hear about what the characters in the game ate for breakfast or what they think of the new government policy, or what they think of the nazi nurse even though she isn't an obstacle. It's boring and most importantly: pointless. And ALL of those voice actors had a horribly fake accent which irritates the hell out of me; they also speak verrrrry slowwwwly.
Also, in Broken Sword, once I've exhausted all dialog options I then click on all the inventory items to see what the character says about it. This basically falls into the same category as what you're thinking of doing here; except that it's with dialog and not inventory items. I have all these inventory items, I know that asking the desk clerk about the manhole cover tool would be useless, but I do it anyway. Why? Because the option is there and I feel as though I've missed something if I don't do it.
I haven't beaten the game yet, but it has gotten to the point that when I enter a new area and see new characters, I almost save the game and quit due to the time consuming boredom of it all. And I usually don't fall into the evil depths of boredom all that easily.
Broken sword? Shadows of the Templars? I always thought that even some things were there to ask you'd more than often get a cool, often funny anwser. On the other hand, what I always liked was the atmosphere of that game...and the art.