Game News David Gaider talks about dialogue choices AGAIN!

[Vault Dweller]

Tags: BioWare; David Gaider; Dragon Age

Last time I posted David Gaider's <a href=http://www.rpgcodex.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=5414>comments on dialogue choices</a>, there was a 12-page flamewar. 9 months later, David is back with <a href=http://forums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=438205&forum=84>fresh thoughts on dialogue choices and explanation of why too many choices is a bad thing</a>.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote>Even so, I think 10-12 response options on any character is too many. There is such a thing as having too many choices, after all.
<br>
<br>
If these responses are there just for roleplaying purposes, to provide the player with different ways of saying the same thing, there's really only so much you can do here. For the fussy roleplayer who would value such a thing, you'll probably never list exactly what they want to say, anyhow. The other option is to not put any voice in at all (such as [tell him to go away]) which is, in my opinion, sacrificing all character for everyone.
<br>
Generally we stick with distinct "voices" for the player: the goody two-shoes, the evil bastard, the smart-*** rogue, the neutral mercenary ...but even then, you're not going to use every voice in every situation unless they're saying very different things.
<br>
<br>
If these responses are there to provide different means of solving problems, that's fine... and, indeed, we've been working on including more and more of that. You have to keep in mind, however, that each solution is something you're going to have to follow through with on the consequences in terms of design and scripting. So you can only provide as many options as you have time for, and even then you have to keep them simple.</blockquote>Bio: Keeping It Simple Since 1995!
<br>
<br>
<br>

 

[Sarvis]

Yeah, because it would be GREAT if it took half an hour just to read through the possible responses.

Oh yeah, and I seem to remember a certain someone... let's call him VD... saying that there are only a few actual responses anyway, and that finding different ways of saying the same thing was not needed.

Sounds REMARKABLY like what Dave is saying here.

 

[Volourn]

"Bio: Keeping It Simple Since 1995!"

Can you name one example of a dialogue in FO where you have 12 different optionsto the same dilemma or question? No, you can't so don't be asanine. Even in your game - which looks awesome in the dialogue chocie department - doesn't seem to have a dozen dialogue options accoridng to the screenshots. Nor should it. That is being silly.

Geez.. I guess it's been awhile since there's been some bashing of Bioware from you; that you had to slum it on the BIO baords in a lame attempt to find soemthing. Too bad there wasn't anything wortwhile.

P.S. This stuff isn't news.
:D

 

[corvax]

not much to bitch about here. bio using dialogue as more than just means to progress the story, even if simplified isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

[obediah]

I don't think his stance is that bad, except that I think the "voices" as describes them are a waste. I don't think forcing me to accept a quest through one of four tired stereotypes is any better than just forcing me to accept the quest with "accept quest". I think different dialogue choices should have different effects, or reach the same affect through different channels, otherwise it's just a waste.

An interesting take on that would be a dialogue system that starts out like that but learns your personality through your initial choices and prunes later options. If I establish early on that I'm a saintly do-gooder, just remove the ass hole options and only offer them again if I gradually shift in that direction.

I do think he has a pretty good grasp on the pros and cons of dialogue trees. They just have different goals in game design.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

An interesting take on that would be a dialogue system that starts out like that but learns your personality through your initial choices and prunes later options. If I establish early on that I'm a saintly do-gooder, just remove the ass hole options and only offer them again if I gradually shift in that direction.

I've been asking for a system like that for quite a long time now. Seems we're in tune on that one.

 

[POOPERSCOOPER]

10-12 responses would be too much. Even if he did do that, half of them would get the same response.

 

[Volourn]

"An interesting take on that would be a dialogue system that starts out like that but learns your personality through your initial choices and prunes later options. If I establish early on that I'm a saintly do-gooder, just remove the ass hole options and only offer them again if I gradually shift in that direction."

That would be cool; but the scripting would be hell espicially if trying to determine if and when a certain option should be reopened to a character...

 

[Vault Dweller]

Yeah, because it would be GREAT if it took half an hour just to read through the possible responses.

Where did I say that I insist on 10-12 responses and anything else sucks?

Oh yeah, and I seem to remember a certain someone... let's call him VD... saying that there are only a few actual responses anyway, and that finding different ways of saying the same thing was not needed.

Sounds REMARKABLY like what Dave is saying here.

If not for the fact that Bio is known for having responses leading to exactly the same thing.

Can you name one example of a dialogue in FO where you have 12 different optionsto the same dilemma or question? No, you can't so don't be asanine

What's with people thinking that I somehow supported that 12 responses thing?

Even in your game - which looks awesome in the dialogue chocie department

Thanks

Geez.. I guess it's been awhile since there's been some bashing of Bioware from you; that you had to slum it on the BIO baords in a lame attempt to find soemthing

Bashing? You call that gentle and loving news post bashing? Geez...It's really been awhile then.

 

[Volourn]

"What's with people thinking that I somehow supported that 12 responses thing?"

Perhaps, it's the fact that Dave was being anti 12 responser and you were nagging on the fact that BIO 'keeps it simple'. It's pretty obvious one would think.


"Bashing? You call that gentle and loving news post bashing? Geez...It's really been awhile then."

Bahsing doesn't always have to consiste of flat out saying something or someone sucks. The snot so subtle commnets like "BIO: keeping it simple" very much makes it bashing.

P.S. I love how you made the thread like a sequel including a 'previously when' recap. LOL

 

[Sarvis]

What's with people thinking that I somehow supported that 12 responses thing?

1) I didn't specify any number at all.
2) You critized Dave for saying 12 responses was too many, meaning you must disagree with him somehow. The natural assumption is that you think there should be 12 responses.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

If these responses are there just for roleplaying purposes, to provide the player with different ways of saying the same thing, there's really only so much you can do here. For the fussy roleplayer who would value such a thing, you'll probably never list exactly what they want to say, anyhow.

No, the "fussy roleplayer" wants dialouge choices that actually matter, have consequences etc. rather than 6 different "yes" or "no" options.

Superficial dialouge choices != roleplaying

 

[Shevek]

Dave's use of the numbers "10-12" is simply a clever rhetorical device. He knows any reasonable person would agree that that number is too high. What he fails to enumerate is where he stands compared to other more dialogue rich systems that better implement dialogue choices on a reasonable plurality of skills and stats.

 

[Vault Dweller]

"What's with people thinking that I somehow supported that 12 responses thing?"

Perhaps, it's the fact that Dave was being anti 12 responser and you were nagging on the fact that BIO 'keeps it simple'. It's pretty obvious one would think.

Last paragraph: "So you can only provide as many options as you have time for, and even then you have to keep them simple" That's what "keeping it simple" refers to.

The snot so subtle commnets like "BIO: keeping it simple" very much makes it bashing.

Generally, yes. At the Codex, it's a show of love and affection

P.S. I love how you made the thread like a sequel including a 'previously when' recap. LOL

It's nice when someone appreciates your work :wink:

 

[Vault Dweller]

You critized Dave for saying 12 responses was too many, meaning you must disagree with him somehow.

Where?

 

[Sarvis]

You critized Dave for saying 12 responses was too many, meaning you must disagree with him somehow.

Where?

Maybe you were unclear. Are you saying simplistic RPGs are a good thing? Doesn't seem like the type of thing you'd normally say... but if you mean it as the sarcastic jibe we'd normally expect from you, then it's definately a criticism.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Once again, I criticized the quality ("So you can only provide as many options as you have time for, and even then you have to keep them simple", not the quantity.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Too many responses is pointless. You say what you want to say and that should be it. While there should be a "Yes.", there shouldn't be "I don't like you, but I'll do it anyway - Yes!" and a "No... well, now that I think about it, yes!" responses. If you're going to add reponses, have them be meaningful at the very least. A "I have second thoughts, can you convince me otherwise?" option would be decent, even if it ultimately leads to you saying either yes or no.

Bio games have had that option in the past, so that's a non-issue. Complaining that Bio's dialogues are too simplistic is the equivilent of a straw man argument when their dialogue is no more, or less complicated than what we've seen of BIS and Troika.

What Dave's just saying is that it's pointless, and I agree, to have a whole bunch of responses that basically say the same thing and provide nothing more than the most kind of inane 'fluff' for idiots who like to role-play their characters to an ungodly degree. Like adding a "cute text" option for every single response for those imbeciles who enjoy playing "cute" characters. "dumb text" is one thing, like Fallout, because it's hilarious, but having all sorts of variations on the "dumb text" idea is a waste of effort.

Planescape: Torment is a really good example of useful dialogue options. I mean, when you can snap someone's neck (based on dexterity score) instead of beating the shit out of him, you've got a winner right there. That's what I'd like to see in Dragon Age. I do not care for 'fluff' dialogue unless it elucidates the subject further.

 

[Sarvis]

Once again, I criticized the quality ("So you can only provide as many options as you have time for, and even then you have to keep them simple", not the quantity.

So then you just failed to express yourself clearly. Problem solved.

You're criticising one sentence in a 3 paragraph post, without setting it off in any way so that we'd know that's what you were drawing attention to. The fact that everyone latched onto the first sentence isn't really such a surprise, considering that fewer choices is also more simple.

Learn to write.

 

[ElastiZombie]

"An interesting take on that would be a dialogue system that starts out like that but learns your personality through your initial choices and prunes later options. If I establish early on that I'm a saintly do-gooder, just remove the ass hole options and only offer them again if I gradually shift in that direction."

That would be cool; but the scripting would be hell espicially if trying to determine if and when a certain option should be reopened to a character...

You could always tie it to an alignment system, like in D&D where the player would have the option of choosing from other near alignment options i.e. a Chaotic Good character could choose from Neutral Good, Neutral, and Chaotic Neutral choices as well as the Chaotic Good ones. Still a bit of work, but at least there's a structure to work with.

 

[Sol Invictus]

Tell him to learn how to read, Sarvis, because that's really the part of his brain that's at fault, assuming that he wasn't intentionally seeking to find fault with David Gaider, which as we all know, he was.

But, if he did not do it intentionally, then it can only be rationally stated that his ability to express himself isn't the waning portion of his mental faculties. Telling him to learn how to read or write better would simply be an insult in response to his wit, rather than a criticism of his actions from an honest point of view.

 

[Surlent]

In future when they start using sound synthetisators, voice recognition, word processors and advanced neural networks for AI in computer games we don't anymore need dialogue options. Anything less than that is a compromise.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'd argue some of Bioware's dialogue in the past was simplistic when it came to it's branching nature and their outcome - it was very clear that there were situations where the handful of dialogue choices presented to you, although presenting variations of speech by NPCs, would lead to the same exact path or outcome.

To me it seems Bioware's problem with dialogue is that they always write fairly good dialogue (aberrations like Minsc excluded, of course), but there's always something to undermine it. In the Baldur's Gate series much of it was false options where many dialogue lines eventually converged into the same result; in Neverwinter Nights it came down to being able to spot where it was all going but not being able to do anything about it (you could confront or expose some NPCs but it didn't do anything); and Knights of the Old Republic suffered from being able to just 'replay' dialogues until you managed to get what you wanted from NPCs.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Once again, I criticized the quality ("So you can only provide as many options as you have time for, and even then you have to keep them simple", not the quantity.

So then you just failed to express yourself clearly. Problem solved.

You're criticising one sentence in a 3 paragraph post, without setting it off in any way so that we'd know that's what you were drawing attention to. The fact that everyone latched onto the first sentence isn't really such a surprise, considering that fewer choices is also more simple.

Learn to write.

Sarvis, Sarvis. Your habits of blaming someone else when you fail to draw an obvious conclusion is getting old.

One, hopefully, last time, the last line of the last paragraph was "keep them simple" which is what my "Bio: keeping it simple" referred to. It doesn't get any more simple than that. Really.

Tell him to learn how to read, Sarvis, because that's really the part of his brain that's at fault, assuming that he wasn't intentionally seeking to find fault with David Gaider, which as we all know, he was.

Follow your own advice and read many explanations above.

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

To me it seems Bioware's problem with dialogue is that they always write fairly good dialogue (aberrations like Minsc excluded, of course), but there's always something to undermine it. In the Baldur's Gate series much of it was false options where many dialogue lines eventually converged into the same result; in Neverwinter Nights it came down to being able to spot where it was all going but not being able to do anything about it (you could confront or expose some NPCs but it didn't do anything); and Knights of the Old Republic suffered from being able to just 'replay' dialogues until you managed to get what you wanted from NPCs.

KotOR also suffered from the non branching dialogue treeing. You could have two choices in most dialogues, one evil and one good in KotOR. The evil one would give you a dark point, the good would give you a light point, and both would lead to the same reply from the NPC.