Game Design Question: Rich, deep, or bloated?

[Vince Twelve]

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. 

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?

[Trumgottist]

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.

[Dave Gilbert]

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.

[Anian]

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.

[Vince Twelve]

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?

[Crimson Wizard]

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.

[AJA]

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.

[TheJBurger]

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

[Vince Twelve]

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.

[Anian]

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.

[Igor Hardy]

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.

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.

[GarageGothic]

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.

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.

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.

[TheJBurger]

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.

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.

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.

[straydogstrut]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Jared]

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)

[Charity]

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.

[Snarky]

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.

[Vince Twelve]

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!

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?

[Ponch]

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.

[MMMorshew]

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.