Game Design Question: Rich, deep, or bloated?

[Vince Twelve]

@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!

[Tramponline]

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? )

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

[Vince Twelve]

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? )

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!  [/pimping]

[Tramponline]

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 *

[Vince Twelve]

Oh, yeah, totally!  I forgot your AGS forum name!  Hi Jochen!  You get the whole shebang! I'll email it to you now!

[Charity]

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.

[Dave Gilbert]

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 on the subject of dialogs in games, as well as do a bit of practice surgery on some of my old dialog exchanges.

[blueskirt]

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.

Haha, glad to see I'm not the only one who did that.

[cat]

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.

[Snarky]

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.

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.

[cat]

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).

[Vince Twelve]

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!

[Stupot]

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.

[Snarky]

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?

[Eggie]

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)

[Vince Twelve]

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!)

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?

[Ilyich]

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, 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.

[qptain Nemo]

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.

[blueskirt]

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.

[Vince Twelve]

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.