Interview A Decadent Interview at RPG Dot

[FrancoTAU]

Seriously, who cares what savage countries these posters are from? They're not from the US or Western Europe, so just feel pity for them and move on.

 

[Vault Dweller]

You could enjoy a game tremendously without respecting the writing, but were you moved by Spare Rangers?

Am I supposed to be moved by a game though? PST did move me, but that's an exceptional, one of a kind game. 9 out of 10 games on my top 10 list didn't move me, but were great and extremely enjoyable. That's what I'm aiming at.

Diablo is a very fun game - does that make it one with memorable NPCs and stories?

Does it have to be? Remember Betrayal in Antara, the not so successful sequel to Betrayal at Krondor? The game was loaded with stories. There were tons of NPCs and each had a very well written story (quest) to tell. The writing was pretty good, and the game felt more like an interactive book, but the game was so-so. Tear of Gods (or something like that), another Feist game, didn't benefit from good writing either.

Still, you have a point there, and I'll consider it.

 

[galsiah]

It's his *reaction* that made the moment memorable, which is why the presentation of that reaction is important. I don't know much about Xcom...

Clearly - it's "reaction" as in reactions / reflexes, rather than response.
The point here is that VD only needed one functional aspect of the "character" to be important in order to feel strongly about leaving that guy behind. In game terms it's extremely simple (one number), but that's enough to lead to a connection to that guy.

In X-com there is nothing about characters that pushes/guides the player towards certain emotional responses - "characters" never say anything, and are little more than a name, some numbers, and a hair colour. However, the player is allowed to develop emotional connections / responses as he plays - and most players will. Even though the soldiers don't say anything, they can have strengths in certain stats, a role in a team, and a past involving various previous missions / brushes with death / death of team members...

...but they're dwarfed by writing in a CRPG because most of your interactions with characters in a CRPG come through either dialogue or combat. That is why writing is so important, imo, in a CRPG.

I think you're still talking about the role of dialogue, not the role specifically of writing/style. It's difficult to draw a line between function and style in writing, but I'd say the functionality is the more important aspect - even in terms of emotional response.

For example, I might have a choice of three brilliantly written dialogue responses for my character, none of which is quite what I want to say. On the other hand I might have five options adequately written, one of which is exactly what I want to say (perhaps not how I'd want to say it).

The second situation is preferable. In a funtional sense, in that I can get what I want, but also in a connection-with-character sense. The first situation forces me to choose an option that my character wouldn't ever say. The second situation allows me to say what I want, but perhaps not exactly how I'd want to have said it. The first is incompatible with my character, while the second is at worst just unlikely.

Of course the ideal is to have a wide range of well written responses. However, I'd say that depth and breadth of options and NPC responses is by far the most important factor.


From a practical point of view, assuming for the moment that more involving writing / NPCs are an aim, how would that be achieved?

Taking PS:T for example, by far the strongest connections I felt were towards companion NPCs - which AoD doesn't use (right?). In Fallout most of the most memorable characters used voice over and extra graphics. PS:T also used voice over at some point for most central characters. [btw have you considered voice acting VD? - you could give each codex member a character and we'd be done in no time. Wouldn't "Voiced by RPGcodex" look great on a feature list ]

Are there many examples of games with non-voiced, non-companion NPCs that were memorable / effective by virtue of their writing? Did it make a significant difference to the game overall? I can't think of many off hand. (I'd be interested in examples - this is an inquiry, rather than a point.)

 

[Roqua]

Can you not respect the man's privacy? I do not tell people my place of origin and there is good reason for it in my case because I have had many issues with people harassing me over petty squabbles that should be dead for centuries. I can only assume VD has similar reasons he would rather be judged by the content of what he says instead of an identity assigned by idiots who have never met him. He is obviously a bright guy and hopefully will make a game we all enjoy; beyond that there is no reason to care about his past.

Can you not respect my curiosity? And no one gives a shit where you are from, we all assume it's retardoland.

Amen.

Alright, Mr. Sensitivity, I'll stop being curious.

 

[Volourn]

Is this bullshit still going on?

AOD is gonna be aweosme. If you don't like the writing (or anything) shut the fuck up and die, mother fuckers.

 

[Azarkon]

Still, you have a point there, and I'll consider it.

Cool Given what you're going for in AoD (ie not PS:T), I think we can simply leave this point as is.

In X-com there is nothing about characters that pushes/guides the player towards certain emotional responses - "characters" never say anything, and are little more than a name, some numbers, and a hair colour. However, the player is allowed to develop emotional connections / responses as he plays - and most players will. Even though the soldiers don't say anything, they can have strengths in certain stats, a role in a team, and a past involving various previous missions / brushes with death / death of team members...

Yes, and "been through fire and water" is an important aspect of invoknig an emotional response from the player. It happens in every sort of squad combat game, and in some sense it's actually good to avoid dialogue altogether if including it will actually detract from the player's imagination. However, these *are* squad combat games, not CRPGs. There's a set of expectations people have for non-action CRPGs that they don't have for squad combat games. Dialogue is one of those things.

Moreover, you must consider that the kind of emotional response you can elicit from players without dialogue is a limited subset of what is achievable in general. I can undoubtedly develop an attachment to a non-speaking mob, but this attachment is limited to what is instinctual unless I have a very active imagination. As a consequence, the kind of characters you can develop without dialogue is incredibly narrow. In X-Com's sense, they're pretty much just comrades in arms. To go beyond that, you need either advanced graphics or the tried and true technique of dialogue. For indy games, I'd almost always recommend dialogue as the primary instrument for defining characters.

At this point, then, we've gone into your second point, which is that functional dialogue is enough (and that stylistic dialogue is simply a bonus). Again, I mostly disagree. What is important is indeed what the characters "say" and "do," but the medium through which you're supposed to present these things is through the writing, which is inherently tied to storytelling because you might have great story concepts, but you'll have a hard time presenting them without competent writing. I'm not talking about, in this case, merely "grammatically correct" writing, though grammatically incorrect writing will certainly be jarring if it's used inappropriately. What I'm really talking about here is the ability to present your ideas effectively.

Let's say that you wanted to convey a sagely character warning the player against a violent approach. You can certainly write:

"They're HUGE fire giants! I really wouldn't attack them, if I were you."

But that just comes off as childish, so the character presentation completely fails and what you end up with is a character that the player will not *believe* or, worse, misinterpret ("maybe the 'sage' has been feebleminded; hmm, maybe I should poke around a bit to see if that's the case..."). Compare that to:

"The Kremian fire giants have a tendency towards belligerence, particularly towards outsiders. I would advise great caution in approaching them, adventurer."

Clearly, the personality of the character is conveyed by the second exchange, whereas it is not (or rather, falsely conveyed) by the first. Hence my point about competent writing being a prerequisite to good characterization in CRPGs: being adept at screenwriting techniques is pretty much necessary if you want to control exactly how players perceive your characters and, ultimately, the story they enact.

Are there many examples of games with non-voiced, non-companion NPCs that were memorable / effective by virtue of their writing? Did it make a significant difference to the game overall? I can't think of many off hand. (I'd be interested in examples - this is an inquiry, rather than a point.)

First, you make a very salient point, which is that GOOD voice acting adds tremendously to characterization and immersion. I'd also argue that a good portrait also goes a long way, even if the character's in-game graphic isn't all that impressive.

Having said that, look to games like the Ultima series if you want to see old non-companion characters that were memorable, but did not have the benefits of voice acting. Look to non-party characters like those in the early FF series/Tactics/Vagrant Story (though I find that JRPGs depend heavily on cinematic techniques such as character movement and "anime" face expressions). Even PS:T's non companion NPCs, such as Trias, Deinonarra, Ravel, etc. can serve as salient examples because their appeal really do not come from the voice acting but from their part in the story and the way in which that story is told.

Of course, I'm not arguing that good writing *alone* is enough to create memorable characters and stories. The ideas must come first, because without them you're just writing fluff, and fluff, even with linguistic virtuosity, is just fluff. My argument is more along the lines that good ideas are not enough. This is true in any medium of expression - you might have an excellent artistic vision, but unless you can portray that vision through some medium in a competent manner, you have nothing. A poorly presented idea is better than a lack of ideas altogether, but the end result is nothing close to the difference between substance and bonus. This does not pertain to writing alone. Cinematic techniques are also significant in a game that supports them, but here I'm clearly speaking the context of AoD, which is a game that probably won't have sophisticated graphics. Therefore all that's left for the purpose of expression is the medium of writing. Hence its importance in my analysis.

That's about all I've got to say, though I will admit that all this high-brow hypothetical discussion pales before a good example, and for that I'll simply have to use PS:T. Not because I think AoD should be PS:T, but because PS:T exemplifies the power of good writing in games and what it can do. On the other hand, we have games like Morrowind and Oblivion, which possess superior graphics and Patrick Stewart voice acting, yet have few, if any, memorable characters. I think the difference is pretty damn significant and speaks for itself.

 

[Llyranor]

Let's say that you wanted to convey a sagely character warning the player against a violent approach. You can certainly write:

"They're HUGE fire giants! I really wouldn't attack them, if I were you."

But that just comes off as childish, so the character presentation completely fails and what you end up with is a character that the player will not *believe* or, worse, misinterpret ("maybe the 'sage' has been feebleminded; hmm, maybe I should poke around a bit to see if that's the case..."). Compare that to:

"The Kremian fire giants have a tendency towards belligerence, particularly towards outsiders. I would advise great caution in approaching them, adventurer."

Clearly, the personality of the character is conveyed by the second exchange, whereas it is not (or rather, falsely conveyed) by the first. Hence my point about competent writing being a prerequisite to good characterization in CRPGs: being adept at screenwriting techniques is pretty much necessary if you want to control exactly how players perceive your characters and, ultimately, the story they enact.

I dunno, I like the first example more :D

 

[Azarkon]

Sure shows your taste in writing, Llyr

But yeah, the first line is perfectly acceptable... From an ADD halfling rogue with an itch in his breeches.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

...it's awfully weak compared to other games out there.

Again, what games? Out where? FO, BG, PST. 5 games. If my game is #6, I can live with that.

In terms of sheer "technical" usage, it's worse than every game I've played in the past five years, which means probably 200 games or so. (FWIW, I haven't played foreign, poorly localized games like Space Rangers 2; I imagine your English edges theirs out.) In terms of artistry, I'd put it in the bottom 25%. That said, I haven't played many RPGs lately, so if you're restricting it to RPGs, and then to the narrow Codex notion of RPGs, and then (apparently) to top-down RPGs, you've probably cut the pool down to just the games you've listed plus a few more. The only modern (which for me means Dark Sun: Shattered Lands forward) RPGs I can think of with dialogue that rubbed me worse from a writing standpoint would be FO2 for breaking the mood so often and Ultima VII for feeling like a lame RenFaire. I suppose you beat out Avernum, too, although I'd say that's about the level I'd put you at.

This is obviously a matter of taste and surely there will be a range of reactions to the writing. (Also, my tastes are probably a bit idiosyncratic, since I know lots of people like thy olde englishe in Ultima.) But I fear that you may be sampling in a *very* biased audience (i.e., boards where you and your game are treated vaguely messianically) and then treating your friends' rubberstamps as indicative of general public reaction. You may want to post those to a board where you're unknown and ask what people think of the writing. Or, better still, don't post screenshots, just post the text itself. See what people say.

As a last note, I'm not sure why you'd feel a need to micromanage anyone you'd bring in to polish, unless that's just a personal inclination. Hire a writer whose skills and judgment you trust, work closely with him for a few characters till you're confident he's got the hang of things, then review the key interactions to make sure things aren't off. Seems easy enough to me.

--EDIT--

@ Azarkon: I also prefer the first version. Fancy words are always worse than cheap words, even if I personally like to doll my language up totally inappropriately.

 

[Azarkon]

*cough* Hire WouldBeCreator *cough*

:wink:

 

[Azarkon]

@ Azarkon: I also prefer the first version. Fancy words are always worse than cheap words, even if I personally like to doll my language up totally inappropriately.

The pompous, pretentious tone was meant to convey a character whose sensibilities are precisely that . That's the beauty of dialogue - it can easily hint at the personality of a particular character.

In terms of value judgments, I certainly wouldn't claim that the second statement is how I'd prefer 'normal' characters in a game spoke. But then that's the point.

 

[WouldBeCreator]

*cough* Hire WouldBeCreator *cough*

:wink:

Sigh. Was I that obvious?

Actually, VD and I would only see eye to eye if somehow our visions could wrap around the entire globe and meet again in the antipodes, so I doubt it would be much of a pairing. And gussying up someone else's story isn't sexy enough to draw me out of my lame, lawyerly existence.

The pompous, pretentious tone was meant to convey a character whose sensibilities are precisely that Smile. That's the beauty of dialogue - it can easily hint at the personality of a particular character.

Fair enough. I hadn't thought it was deliberate. I've definitely came across lots of folk who think that "good writing" means fancy words and run-on sentences, so I worried you were falling prey to that vice.

 

[Azarkon]

Fair enough. I hadn't thought it was deliberate. I've definitely came across lots of folk who think that "good writing" means fancy words and run-on sentences, so I worried you were falling prey to that vice.

Unfortunately, the notion is shared by more than naive writers. My experience on most message boards has been that people tend to take your point seriously only if you play the proverbial diction obfuscation card. That, or if you insult their intelligence. The latter always works.

A simple, colloquial style will quickly earn your initiation into the "mundane masses," while significant grammatical errors will get your arguments dismissed on the basis of stupidity.

For a good example of this, follow Gromnir around for a while and count how many "english must not be your first language lol" posts he gets among people that doesn't know him.

 

[Llyranor]

In terms of sheer "technical" usage, it's worse than every game I've played in the past five years, which means probably 200 games or so. (FWIW, I haven't played foreign, poorly localized games like Space Rangers 2; I imagine your English edges theirs out.) In terms of artistry, I'd put it in the bottom 25%. That said, I haven't played many RPGs lately, so if you're restricting it to RPGs, and then to the narrow Codex notion of RPGs, and then (apparently) to top-down RPGs, you've probably cut the pool down to just the games you've listed plus a few more. The only modern (which for me means Dark Sun: Shattered Lands forward) RPGs I can think of with dialogue that rubbed me worse from a writing standpoint would be FO2 for breaking the mood so often and Ultima VII for feeling like a lame RenFaire. I suppose you beat out Avernum, too, although I'd say that's about the level I'd put you at.
.

I bet you don't play JRPGs

 

[WouldBeCreator]

I haven't played a jRPG since Final Fantasy 7. But pre-PSX days, I found that the translations were pretty decent all around. The games were way too word-heavy, though I didn't notice or mind it at the time. (FFT and Xenogears were the last two nails in the coffin in which I buried my fondness for jRPGs; the text of both was worse in every way than AoD's.)

--EDIT--

Unfortunately, the notion is shared by more than naive writers. My experience on most message boards has been that people tend to take your point seriously only if you play the proverbial diction obfuscation card. That, or if you insult their intelligence. The latter always works.

A simple, colloquial style will quickly earn your initiation into the "mundane masses," while significant grammatical errors will get your arguments dismissed on the basis of stupidity.

Forsooth and verily.

 

[Azarkon]

Hwaet we garde na in geardagum þeodcyninga

Big words - not old ones

 

[WouldBeCreator]

Sadly, I never learned to play the old angle-sax, so I'll just nod as if I understood what that meant.

 

[Azarkon]

Same here. That's about the extent of what I know - ie the first line of Beowulf.

I much prefer the, uh, 'Tolkien' period of English.

 

[galsiah]

As a consequence, the kind of characters you can develop without dialogue is incredibly narrow.

I don't know - I felt really sorry for the mime artist in PS:T .

...if you want to control exactly how players perceive your characters and, ultimately, the story they enact.

But do you? I think some film makers would say no. Just a thought.

Having said that, look to games like the Ultima series if you want to see old non-companion characters that were memorable, but did not have the benefits of voice acting.

Haven't played them yet - it's on my to-do list.

Even PS:T's non companion NPCs, such as Trias, Deinonarra, Ravel, etc. can serve as salient examples because their appeal really do not come from the voice acting but from their part in the story and the way in which that story is told.

It's dangerous to assume that though. I think I'd have reacted similarly to Deinonarra without the voice (and the music actually - I liked that music), but how can I be sure?

Of course I realize that it's "unfair" to rule out these characters, since the voiced characters are exactly those who probably would have been most memorable without voicing.

On the other hand, we have games like Morrowind and Oblivion, which possess superior graphics and Patrick Stewart voice acting, yet have few, if any, memorable characters. I think the difference is pretty damn significant and speaks for itself.

The difference goes beyond the writing style though. PS:T characters had a fairly wide range of possible reactions based on player action. Morrowind characters had a reaction slider and the occasional quest trigger. The player also rarely got to choose to say anything - he just picked topics.
That's a huge functional dialogue difference. I agree that PS:T writing is superior to Morrowind writing. However, you'd need large functional changes to Morrowind dialogue before you could effectively PS:Tize it.

But yeah, the first line is perfectly acceptable... From an ADD halfling rogue with an itch in his breeches.

You've ruined VD's master plot twist:
There was no magical war. The world was over-run by a faction of ADD halfling rogues with hygiene issues. After destroying civilization through impatience, they blamed the mages. You yourself are naturally a halfling rogue too, but you don't realize this, since particularly painful itching in your breeches leads to memory loss.
Will you merge with your breeches, or defeat them in an epic final battle?


As for the importance of all this for AoD, I still think it can work as a good game with merely function dialogue which doesn't either get in the way, or inspire. Better writing might give it more chance to be a great game, but won't make it good if it isn't already.

But I fear that you may be sampling in a *very* biased audience

How can you say that?

AOD is gonna be aweosme. If you don't like the writing (or anything) shut the fuck up and die, mother fuckers.

 

[Azarkon]

I don't know - I felt really sorry for the mime artist in PS:T Wink.

To that note, I've always thought it'd be interesting to try and portray a full-fledged mute character in a CRPG.

But do you? I think some film makers would say no. Just a thought.

People who say so tend to do it from the perspective of how their work is interpreted, I think. I doubt that their artistic process is dramatically different and that their characters are not equipped with equal personal meaning. They simply don't want to extend said meaning to the entire audience.

It's dangerous to assume that though. I think I'd have reacted similarly to Deinonarra without the voice (and the music actually - I liked that music), but how can I be sure?

Of course I realize that it's "unfair" to rule out these characters, since the voiced characters are exactly those who probably would have been most memorable without voicing.

It's the concepts behind these characters that ultimately invoke our reactions. The ideas *are* core - to that extent I'm in total agreement. However, what I've said so far is that these concepts must be presented competently in order for me to understand them in full and to take them seriously. Lacking in that, I escape into a theatre of the absurd. Immersion is maintained by verisimilitude (whatever that might imply in a fantasy world, I'm sure we all have our different takes), and that requires a certain degree of skill in dialogue crafting.

It's like the sage and the ADD halfling. If I say that the sage is a sage but he talks like an ADD halfling... We've got problems. I've recently come across something like this, actually, in a NWN mod where I encountered a group of kobolds. The dialogue went something like this:

Kobold 1: An adventurer, in our domain? What a fool you must be.
Kobold 2: His presence here is certainly suspicious, and threatens our operations. Go and inform the leader. We'll take care of him.

Suffice to say, the experience was jarring. Now, I could've accepted it as a breath of fresh air if the game had some explanations as to why, being set in a classic D&D world, its kobolds were possessed of human-like eloquence. But it did not - and given that the rest of the game had pretty much the same style of writing, I could only surmise that the author lacked the skill to distinguish between ways of speaking.

The difference goes beyond the writing style though. PS:T characters had a fairly wide range of possible reactions based on player action. Morrowind characters had a reaction slider and the occasional quest trigger. The player also rarely got to choose to say anything - he just picked topics.
That's a huge functional dialogue difference. I agree that PS:T writing is superior to Morrowind writing. However, you'd need large functional changes to Morrowind dialogue before you could effectively PS:Tize it.

While I don't think that choices are necessary to craft memorable characters (or else JRPGs would be bottom of the pile - which, if you exit this board, isn't a widely shared opinion), there's definitely more to it than good writing. Oblivion's problem, in particular, seems more like Besthesda consistently failing to generate good character ideas, period. Regardless, the games demonstrate that VO and graphics alone are not sufficient to create great characters. Personality, expressed through dialogue, is of pivotal importance.

Will you merge with your breeches, or defeat them in an epic final battle?

The former. I'd hate to go up against my breeches, considering what they hold hostage!

As for the importance of all this for AoD, I still think it can work as a good game with merely function dialogue which doesn't either get in the way, or inspire. Better writing might give it more chance to be a great game, but won't make it good if it isn't already.

Quite true. Great ideas come first, followed by great presentation. Without the former, there is no latter.

But frankly, I'm not that worried about VD's ideas.

AOD is gonna be aweosme. If you don't like the writing (or anything) shut the fuck up and die, mother fuckers.

It's always hard to tell when Volourn is being serious, and when he's being facetious...

 

[Balor]

It's always hard to tell when Volourn is being serious

Oh, that's easy. He never is.
Even when he himself thinks that he is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Let's say that you wanted to convey a sagely character warning the player against a violent approach. You can certainly write:

"They're HUGE fire giants! I really wouldn't attack them, if I were you."

But that just comes off as childish, so the character presentation completely fails and what you end up with is a character that the player will not *believe* or, worse, misinterpret ("maybe the 'sage' has been feebleminded; hmm, maybe I should poke around a bit to see if that's the case..."). Compare that to:

"The Kremian fire giants have a tendency towards belligerence, particularly towards outsiders. I would advise great caution in approaching them, adventurer."

As you can see most people disliked the artificial (i.e. nobody talks like that, not even a "pompous, pretentious" character) second response and preferred the simplicity of the first one, despite the childish style. Well, my dialogues, imo, are somewhere in between and I do believe they reflect realistic conversations, which may also explains the criticism of would be litterateurs.

In terms of sheer "technical" usage, it's worse than every game I've played in the past five years, which means probably 200 games or so. (FWIW, I haven't played foreign, poorly localized games like Space Rangers 2; I imagine your English edges theirs out.)

Now THAT, Azarkon, is how pompous and pretentious people express themselves. Take some notes.

In terms of artistry, I'd put it in the bottom 25%. That said, I haven't played many RPGs lately, so if you're restricting it to RPGs, and then to the narrow Codex notion of RPGs, and then (apparently) to top-down RPGs, you've probably cut the pool down to just the games you've listed plus a few more.

Oblivion and Rise of Legends, for example.

But I fear that you may be sampling in a *very* biased audience (i.e., boards where you and your game are treated vaguely messianically) and then treating your friends' rubberstamps as indicative of general public reaction.

The underlined part may explain your sentiments toward me and this thread. I don't think that someone treats me or the game "messianically". There was a lot of criticism, constructive or otherwise, from the first day, and that criticism helped me to improve many aspects of the game. Your criticism, to be honest, feels like something a bit personal, like criticism for the sake of criticism, if you get my drift. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting.

 

[Claw]

Oh, for a while I was worried VD might be ill. :D

 

[galsiah]

Your criticism, to be honest, feels like something a bit personal, like criticism for the sake of criticism, if you get my drift. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting.

To be fair, I think WBC is always this "pompous and pretentious" - particularly about writing. Perhaps you think it's annoying, but I don't think there's anything personal in it.

If he's overstating the case (and I think he is, given that you aren't aiming for PS:T), that's probably a reaction to comments that there's no problem at all. There clearly are at least a few problems - I just don't think they're too important, given your aims.

He is right to say that you shouldn't take the opinions of people here as unbiased though. People tend to come up with criticisms when they have an interest in an area - so you've got quite a bit of criticism on most areas from one person or another.
For areas where people have less interest / knowledge, they'll usually just give an opinion, and for most codexers that will be biased in your favour.

If you would consider putting much more time into the writing if X% of people didn't like it, then it would make sense to get opinions from an unbiased source. I doubt that most people would think to comment on it in any case, but then again, "most people" won't be buying AoD.

As I say, I still don't see how it would be much of a priority beyond a functional level. The writing in Fallout was pretty good, but I wouldn't say it was particularly important to my enjoyment.

 

[bryce777]

Your criticism, to be honest, feels like something a bit personal, like criticism for the sake of criticism, if you get my drift. I could be wrong, but that's the impression I'm getting.

To be fair, I think WBC is always this "pompous and pretentious" - particularly about writing. Perhaps you think it's annoying, but I don't think there's anything personal in it.
.

Just don't copy wbc's style. He has to use three paragraphs to say what he ate for breakfast.

The difficult thing about characterization, and dialog (btw I am a published author) is that you have to actually get into the head of the character you are writing for and have a style different than your own and make it not seem idiotic. To me, that is the hardest thing to do in writing, though it is different for everyone.