Mass Effect - 2-minute video of a full conversation.

[PseudoIntellectual Snob]

The importance isn't only in the substance of what you say (which this system guarantees cannot be nuanced). It's also in how you say it - in most RPGs the player can read what the PC is going to say ahead of time, and assess its impact and likely chance of success / implications. Try classifying most PC responses in Fallout / PST / ... in similar terms to those you gave above.

I mentioned Torment as an exeption. Left out Fallout because, truth being said, i do not remember any situation, leaving aside maybe (big, big maybe) the final argumentation with the mutant boss guy, where how did you said what you said actually affected anything in a measurable way. Maybe it is my memory and not the game per se. Maybe we'll get back to it after i replay it.

And i wonder what the ellipsis stands for, as the only other game i remember where how did you said something or what statements you made were somewhat (over-simplified as it was) backed up by a game mechanic was KOTOR2, not one of the Codex's holy cows at any rate. This may sound as a double-faced question, but i am actually interested in any game that implements such a thing, so share the knowledge.

The dialogue aspect of gameplay gets trivialized, becoming merely functional - with all the inherent value of inventory management. If there is any interest in the PC's statements/actions, it's because the player *didn't* want/expect them to happen. If the long version of *why?* really does have no content beyond *why?* - it's a dull waste of time; if it does have content beyond *why?* the player's flying blindfold.

I am with you on that one, one hundred percent.

In ME, the tradeoff isn't providing any dialogue gameplay - it's speeding things up, cutting down on reading, and giving a more cinematic (no - not a good thing) experience. Things are happening quickly - since the player has precious little to read, and therefore very limited information to inform his decision. The player can remain interested in seeing a load of relatively surprising stuff - since he has very little control over it.

The system is fast, because nothing of worth is being mentioned and not a single choice needing consideration is being thrown at the player: They do not have a discussion or conversation, but simply throw declarations at each other. That is fault of design and concept, not of the system. In my opinion this system is begging for a game where pauses and interruptions are actually considered by the dialogue mechanics, and the timing or expresions can actually be used to tell something about the interloper.

And yes, the system is cinematic - what is wrong with that? It can be a medium to give a dialogue, or any other interaction, more deep, character, and style in ways outside the reach of written or spoken text, just as well written and spoken text can reach things a "cinematic" flair can't. Why limit oneself to one or the other? That is, precisely, what Bioware is doing: They cut the writing and fill the gap with cinematics devoid of all meaning, because their target is the kind of people that liked 300. You want to cut the cinematic and fill the gap with writing? Why not use both to tell something meaningful, each one doing what it does well?

That doesn't make it a bad feature for an action game, but it shouldn't get it any credit for "RPG elements" when its implementation demonstrates a focus on action and a cinematic experience above careful consideration and player control.

It demonstrates that Bioware is targeting a certain group and thus using the system in ways related to the tastes of such a group and not that the system is, from a cRPG viewpoint, flawed per se. I believe this kind of thing has potential, and a lot of it - Now, that someone will come and actually use it in ways that live up to that? Highly doubtful, but that does not make the system any less revolutionary in its potential applications, as much for RPGs as any other genre.

OffTopic: See? An entire post without latin expressions being thrown around, just for you. I want a cookie for the effort. xP

 

[galsiah]

Left out Fallout because, truth being said, i do not remember any situation, leaving aside maybe (big, big maybe) the final argumentation with the mutant boss guy, where how did you said what you said actually affected anything in a measurable way.

Most of the difference isn't in the consequences of what/how you say things - it's in the player's ability to have precise and complete information on which to predict those consequences. It's not necessary that there actually be two gameplay paths that exist in the game and are differentiated by the way something is said.
All that's necessary is for there to be at least two potential paths (from the player's point of view - i.e. both needn't be implemented in the game), and for the player to be able to make predictions on which ones are likely to result from his speech. The game is played from the player's point of view. From the player's point of view, there could be any number of possible outcomes. For him to make an informed decision, he needs to be able to predict which of these possibilities might arise.

Subtle details of an option can be important, even when all options are very different.

And i wonder what the ellipsis stands for...

My lack of wide experience with RPGs. I can't name others, but I'm pretty sure they're out there. Also see above - I don't think it has to be as specific a requirement as you seem to (i.e. it doesn't have to be about differentiating two closely related options - it can be about fully understanding one [and in so doing, deciding between wildly different options]).

...what statements you made were somewhat (over-simplified as it was) backed up by a game mechanic

You still seem to be assuming that there needs to be an explicit mechanic covering the different ways to say something. There doesn't - the existing dialogue scripting already encodes the "mechanics" by special-casing everything to the current situation. Presenting the player with the full text of his speech provides the player with information important to his understanding of the situation (i.e. the "mechanics").

This may sound as a double-faced question, but i am actually interested in any game that implements such a thing, so share the knowledge.

I'd have listed them if I could think of any - I just haven't played that many RPGs. Arcanum surely though. Bloodlines? I'd say so. I'm no authority on hidden RPG gems.
We seem to be talking about slightly different things though.

They do not have a discussion or conversation, but simply throw declarations at each other. That is fault of design and concept, not of the system. In my opinion this system is begging for a game where pauses and interruptions are actually considered by the dialogue mechanics...

Sure - I've agreed that it's an interesting concept. I'm just arguing against its current implementation. It has an obvious downside, without any upside I can see - beyond getting things over with quickly.

And yes, the system is cinematic - what is wrong with that?

I mean cinematic as in lacking-player-agency. The player spends significant time just watching to see what "his" character says.

Why limit oneself to one or the other?

I'm fine with having stuff expressed graphically. I'm not fine with the player sitting back and watching it - when his character is an active agent in the situation. Of course that might be really enjoyable for some people - perhaps half-game-half-film is what they're after. That's fine - it's just not what I want from a game. I want interactivity. Having to wait for a sequence that is either redundant (if it's a long-winded reiteration), or out of your control (if it's not what you meant), is not what I want.

Why not use both to tell something meaningful, each one doing what it does well?

I don't mind "cinematic" expression - so long as its use doesn't force a railroaded design. I'd prefer developers didn't sacrifice variety / non-linearity / agency to accommodate cinematic elements. I'd also say the same about writing - PS:T probably sacrifices more than I'd like.
Of course it's a grey area, but things are currently much too far towards cinema/(bad)literature than towards responsive, non-linear worlds, for my taste.

I'd rather games focus on what's unique to games - the gameplay -, than become a confluence of multimedia mediocrity. There's better art/music/writing elsewhere. Of course they need these things - I just don't think it makes sense to have them be the main focus.

It demonstrates that Bioware is targeting a certain group and thus using the system in ways related to the tastes of such a group and not that the system is, from a cRPG viewpoint, flawed per se. I believe this kind of thing has potential, and a lot of it

Sure, but I'm criticising what they're doing with it - not the idea itself. If that's all they can make of it, I don't think it should be included. I don't think they deserve credit for an "RPG element" until they use such a system to further RPG gameplay (I know it when I see it ).

 

[Pegultagol]

Sort of getting how this new dialog system debate is shaping, I would say that the cinematic ones would not bode too well for the kind of paths that reflect any type of attributes that govern speech skills. Cinematic context to how a natural conversation would span out is a noble effort and may be an innovation, even. But it seems to sacrifice the dynamic nature of how one could observe character development, closes some paths that may offer more introspection into the character traits. At least that is what I took from the demonstration. It emulates the immediate thought process that compel a person to formulate dialogs, but it is nonetheless scripted emoting that is aesthetically pleasing but does not better reflect the character that you are trying to role-play. It seems you are role-playing more of yourself. So for me, I would rather be limited by words than visuals.

Of course the dialog paths do not exactly resemble how I would carry on a conversation, because I am a blubbering English as second language fool. They are nothing more than an insinuation of how articulate, under specific circumstance, in order to attempt to achieve a certain effect, one would desire to steer the conversation.

 

[Severian Silk]

My using your brains.

:shock: Volourn has superpowers!

I think Mass Effect will be better than KOTOR. The combat system is already improved. The setting interests me more than neo-Star Wars. The dialogue unfortunately seemed like Bioware's usual juvenile stuff.

 

[Bradylama]

I dunno what the difference between the "you've made your case" and the "okay" choices would be, considering how Shepard didn't mention anything about being convinced.

Looks like it'll be fun with mouselook, tho.

 

[TalesfromtheCrypt]

I cant believe you guys are ignoring the massive indicators of totaly awesome nonlinear level design:

Seriously, what a shit. They are still marketing this as a RPG? Why? Because the shooting part as showing in the video looks so incredibly boring and poorly done?

 

[aries202]

My using your brains.

:shock: Volourn has superpowers!

I think Mass Effect will be better than KOTOR. The combat system is already improved. The setting interests me more than neo-Star Wars. The dialogue unfortunately seemed like Bioware's usual juvenile stuff.

The dialoque in the gameplay video shown at gamespot.com sure looked a bit juvenile, even to me. But that's what just for E3, I think. You can actually choose between 2-4 (or 3-6) different topics in Mass Effect. Now compare this to what I've read on JRPGs for consoles which mostly seems to cutscene - fighting - cutscene - fighting, Mass Effect is a big improvement over this, especially in the dialogue portion of the game. You can actually make a (somewhat) meaningfull choice that (sort of) furthers the story in the game along, and not just listen to the story. Amazing! Isn't it ? At least for an (action) rpg on the console.

The combat in Mass Effect seems more freeform than the traditional JRPG's combat, because you can pause the game and give orders to your squad, which they then will carry out, when you let go of the release button. Another amazing! feature for Mass Effect - at least compared with the traditional queuing up: turn-based combat in JRPG where you don't have that much control over combat (or a very little control over combat).

Mass Effect is released for the Xbox 360, and as such will compete with the rpgs out there for Xbox 360. So Mass Effect IS doing something different and unique - at least seen in the context of console jrpgs.

If compared to the PC market, of course, Mass Effect will lose and bleaken in comparision since what ME does in the console market has been done on the pc market for years. It's all about the context...

 

[bryce77]

you can't compare a jrpg to a crpg. ALL crpg's offer more dialog choices than any jrpg; you're comparing apples to oranges. japanese rpg's are made via a completely different set of design philosophies and as such should be looked at as a seperate genre altogether.

hence the "j" before the rpg part...

 

[Severian Silk]

According to this article, CRPG also stands for "console role-playing game".

 

[Callaxes]

Not all CRPG's offer dialog chooices. Dialog trees started to be used back at the end of the 80's.

Not even the best of modern CRPG's offer dialog chooice, like Wizardry 8, the late Ultima's or even Daggerfall, while some bad or mediocre CRPGs do (Ravenloft: Stone Prophet).

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

you can't compare a jrpg to a crpg. ALL crpg's offer more dialog choices than any jrpg; you're comparing apples to oranges. japanese rpg's are made via a completely different set of design philosophies and as such should be looked at as a seperate genre altogether.

hence the "j" before the rpg part...

Tell that to the millions who believe that jRPGs are the first and only true RPGs.

 

[Annonchinil]

I am not sure about the combat system, first of all it seems a bit to clutterd as a third person action game, with stats, where you have to pause, cast spells and issuer orders.
Second of all action games need
-Good level desing
-Decent AI
The leve design looks a lot like KOTOR while with the game three/four months from release the AI seems non-existant, especially when Garus gets attacked from the back by a Geth and just stands there or when the other Geth just stares at the wall until Sheppard kills it.

I am still unsold on their digital actors, simply because all we have seen so far is eye movments and lipsynching on high polygon models with wooden faces while the few facial changes we have seen have looked somewhat akward and unnatural. In fact some things are annoying, like how Sheppard lifts his left eye brow everytime he asks a question.

 

[Severian Silk]

The dialoque in the gameplay video shown at gamespot.com sure looked a bit juvenile, even to me. But that's what just for E3, I think. You can actually choose between 2-4 (or 3-6) different topics in Mass Effect. Now compare this to what I've read on JRPGs for consoles which mostly seems to cutscene - fighting - cutscene - fighting, Mass Effect is a big improvement over this, especially in the dialogue portion of the game. You can actually make a (somewhat) meaningfull choice that (sort of) furthers the story in the game along, and not just listen to the story. Amazing! Isn't it ? At least for an (action) rpg on the console.

Other than recruiting/not recruiting an NPC, we have not been showed any examples of the dialogue choices actually having meaningful consequences. As it stands, it just seems to determine which lore you listen to.

 

[sportforredneck]

Other than recruiting/not recruiting an NPC, we have not been showed any examples of the dialogue choices actually having meaningful consequences. As it stands, it just seems to determine which lore you listen to.

I've attempted to avoiding reading the spoilers of what actually happens, it's up somewhere if you want to read it yourself, but it seems might be able to destroy the krogan race or cure them, etc. I'd assume that would have some consequence.

 

[Bradylama]

Hopefully those consequences involve actually caring about the Krogans and having a vested interest in their survival or destruction that goes beyond knick-knacks and paddywacks.

 

[Claw]

I dunno what the difference between the "you've made your case" and the "okay" choices would be, considering how Shepard didn't mention anything about being convinced.

I didn't actually expect "you've made your case" to be outright agreement. I thought the options were "Maybe. Yes. No." instead of "Yes. Yes. No."

 

[Dark Matter]

you can't compare a jrpg to a crpg. ALL crpg's offer more dialog choices than any jrpg; you're comparing apples to oranges. japanese rpg's are made via a completely different set of design philosophies and as such should be looked at as a seperate genre altogether.

hence the "j" before the rpg part...

So ME is a crpg now? The Codexer's need to make up their mind. On one hand the codexers are claiming the game has no RPing elements and that it's basically just a shooter and on the other hand, you guys insist on judging and criticizing Mass Effect as if it was a classic CRPG. As Volourn repeatedly stated, the game is an action RPG, and it should be treated as such.

 

[Dark Matter]

The dialoque in the gameplay video shown at gamespot.com sure looked a bit juvenile, even to me. But that's what just for E3, I think. You can actually choose between 2-4 (or 3-6) different topics in Mass Effect. Now compare this to what I've read on JRPGs for consoles which mostly seems to cutscene - fighting - cutscene - fighting, Mass Effect is a big improvement over this, especially in the dialogue portion of the game. You can actually make a (somewhat) meaningfull choice that (sort of) furthers the story in the game along, and not just listen to the story. Amazing! Isn't it ? At least for an (action) rpg on the console.

Other than recruiting/not recruiting an NPC, we have not been showed any examples of the dialogue choices actually having meaningful consequences. As it stands, it just seems to determine which lore you listen to.

Realistically speaking, what are the possible consequences in the examples they've shown so far? In the E3 demo where Shephard threatens the bartender, your party member(s) apparently bitch about it. That seems fair enough, anything beyond that and it would just feel like a forced attempt at pleasing the Codexers. As for the X06 demo example, you can't really make a judgment on that since we don't know what the possible consequences are(if any) if Shephard chooses to rescue the miners or not. Even then, supposing you let the miners die, aside from some of your party members getting angry and whining about it, I don't really expect anything more to happen. Hopefully, some of your party members might leave or rebel against you if you repeatedly act in a way which they dissapprove of, but aside from that, everything we've seen so far seems about right.

 

[sportforredneck]

In the E3 demo where Shephard threatens the bartender, your party member(s) apparently bitch about it. That seems fair enough, anything beyond that and it would just feel like a forced attempt at pleasing the Codexers.

I wouldn't say so. I had brought it up many a time at the official forums that when Shepard threatens the bartender it was much too over the top and deserved consequences. They wouldn't even have to be absurd consequences, but not just "hey that's mean dude."

Instead BioWare makes up the excuse that Spectres have unlimited power and can do whatever the hell they want as long as it gets results, which is stupid because then I should be able to just go around and destroy basically every planet and be able to claim that I managed to stop all the drug cartels or whatever they have in space, probably pirates.

 

[Volourn]

"They wouldn't even have to be absurd consequences, but not just "hey that's mean dude."

And, guess what? That happens. Your logic fails.

 

[Dark Matter]

Some good news about Mass Effect from the new Gamespot Q&A:

GS: You mention the "critical path" kind of core storyline. How linear is that storyline? You've said that this game is or may be the first part of a trilogy, so are we looking at, say, multiple possible endings, or is it going to be a more fixed progression for the storyline?

CH: There are definitely multiple endings, and it's actually a matrix of endings, and not just because it branches out into a few different points from one decision point. It's actually based on a combination of the way that you play the entire game and the decisions that you make throughout the ending sequence, so that both of those things actually really matter. It's nice to be able to make really important decisions as you approach the ending of a game to decide what's going to happen. But you don't want to have a situation where you can just reload and make different decisions and see a different ending, and see [all the endings] that way. Because, really, that's the value of being able to play a certain way throughout an entire game, is that that makes for a fundamentally different ending.

 

[sportforredneck]

"They wouldn't even have to be absurd consequences, but not just "hey that's mean dude."

And, guess what? That happens. Your logic fails.

Why the hell do you even bother talking? All you do is use your own soundbites over and over such as "game over," "stop the bullshit start the truth," etc. What exactly are you adding, that's what happens? No shit, I watched the video, I know that happens. That's why I said that.

 

[Bradylama]

Some good news about Mass Effect from the new Gamespot Q&A:

If the Mass Effect sequels are all on the 360 and they bring back savegame crossovers, that would be fuckin wild.

 

[Edward_R_Murrow]

And, guess what? That happens. Your logic fails.

So you're the person who stole Doc's DeLorean....

If the Mass Effect sequels are all on the 360 and they bring back savegame crossovers, that would be fuckin wild.

Dare I say...EXTREME?

 

[Bradylama]

You could carry over collar grabs between installments! It's like the Golden Pants!