Divinity: Original Sin Pre-Release Thread

[MicoSelva]

Angthoron: give me an example of a good PC game that uses a dialogue wheel.

You know full well that I can't

Even dropping the "good" part. Do such games (PC games using dialogue wheel) exist?

 

[Lancehead]

Why the hate for dialogue wheel? It's just a visual representation...?

 

[felipepepe]

Why the hate for dialogue wheel? It's just a visual representation...?

Made for controllers, with no room for long sentences or more than 6 replys...

 

[Lancehead]

Yes, it has limitations, but those hardly make it deserving of hate. For one, ForkTong says he's not pro-full sentences, and second the wheel doesn't necessarily limit the complexity of dialogue you can have, as evidenced by Alpha Protocol which uses only 4 dialogue options.

 

[Angthoron]

Why the hate for dialogue wheel? It's just a visual representation...?

Made for controllers, with no room for long sentences or more than 6 replys...

Felipepepe pretty much nailed it already, but I'll elaborate.

Dialogue wheel presupposes brevity in player input - this can be acceptable, in a sense, as D: OS player input is at the core brief; however, the other item it presupposes is that the dialogues are going to be voiced, since, if they aren't voiced, why would you bother creating such a system to begin with? Just create a chatbox-style text field and roll with that, the way it's been done in Torment et al. Voice-acted games presuppose lower volume of text and information because VA is costly, and the storage of VA data takes a fair amount of space. This further limits the amount of possible responses and dialogue options, and world-reactive c&c that can easily be filled by textual feedback but not by voice.

At which point what you have is no longer a good RPG.

Furthermore, for a cRPG such a dialogue UI is pointless simply because we have a mouse to click with.

 

[Lancehead]

the other item it presupposes is that the dialogues are going to be voiced,

How?

since, if they aren't voiced, why would you bother creating such a system to begin with?

Because controller, and general console UI. Not because of VO.

Voice-acted games presuppose lower volume of text and information because VA is costly, and the storage of VA data takes a fair amount of space.

I know this point follows from your earlier point which I disagree with, but still, this is also I disagree with. Games with keywords or phrases (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Alpha Protocol) have a lot more voice work on the pc's part because they don't have to display all that text.

This further limits the amount of possible responses and dialogue options, and world-reactive c&c that can easily be filled by textual feedback but not by voice.

At which point what you have is no longer a good RPG.

Again, I point to Alpha Protocol, a game that has some of the most deep and complex narrative reactivity of any game. And it only uses 4 phrased dialogue options per wheel.

Edit: Also, Deus Ex HR.

Furthermore, for a cRPG such a dialogue UI is pointless simply because we have a mouse to click with.

Agree here, I'm not arguing for a dialogue wheel for D:OS, I simply don't find enough reason to despise it.

 

[ForkTong]

For D:OS: you can collect too many keywords that would never fit a wheel. Also, it's not a game you'll be playing with a controller, so I don't see the use. And I know I'm no good with controllers, but even with a controller, I'd prefer up and down and select rather than "move thumbstick in awkward angle and hope your shit highlights".

 

[Infinitron]

Again, I point to Alpha Protocol, a game that has some of the most deep and complex narrative reactivity of any game.

Alpha Protocol has some of the most deep and complex narrative reactivity for its specific sub-genre of linear cinematic "popamole" RPGs.

You can't exactly compare it with the type of reactivity found in a more freeform, proper CRPG.

 

[Lancehead]

What does being cinematic and popamle has to do with its narrative reactivity? How do those qualities hinder (if that's what you're saying) said reactivity, assuming VO didn't affect the amount of dialogue? AP does have a ton of voiced dialogue and I don't see any evidence of it negatively affecting the reactivity.

Like I said before, I'm not saying D:OS should use it because the game has different needs, and in fact given the choice between the wheel and the list, I'd pick the list. My point is that if you want a complex dialogue system, the wheel isn't exactly a serious hindrance. Case in point, Obsidian (who value such things as dialogue) in-house engine Onyx uses dialogue wheel.

 

[Infinitron]

What does being cinematic and popamle has to do with its narrative reactivity?

It has everything to do with it. Alpha Protocol is a game that's arranged into discrete mission chunks. You don't wander around the world at will, talking to whatever NPCs you want whenever you want, killing whoever you want to kill, doing whatever you want to do. It is much easier to create "reactivity" with that constraint.

It's an apples and oranges comparison. I can't believe I have to tell you this.

Case in point, Obsidian (who value such things as dialogue) in-house engine Onyx uses dialogue wheel.

Engines don't come with dialogue wheels. Onyx can use whatever dialogue system Obsidian wants to code in it.

 

[Lancehead]

What does being cinematic and popamle has to do with its narrative reactivity?

It has everything to do with it. Alpha Protocol is a game that's arranged into discrete mission chunks. You don't wander around the world at will, talking to whatever NPCs you want whenever you want, killing whoever you want to kill, doing whatever you want to do. It is much easier to create "reactivity" with that constraint.

That doesn't make any sense when the reactivity spans across these "chunks". You say as if reactivity is contained within this discrete mission chunks, and that's patently false.

It's an apples and oranges comparison. I can't believe I have to tell you this.

And I have to repeat myself a second time that I'm not making any comparisons. My argument has nothing to do with if the wheel is suitable for D:OS type of games. Only that you can have a complex dialogue system with the wheel.

Engines don't come with dialogue wheels. Onyx can use whatever dialogue system Obsidian wants to code in it.

Bad example on my part.

 

[MicoSelva]

Dialogue wheel makes a lot of sense in fully voiced games, such as Mass Effect. You do not want to show players full sentences in dialogs in games like this because all the voice-work for the PC would go to waste. Who would wait to hear the PC speak his part if he already knows what is going to be said?
Instead You choose one or two words and pray that Commander Shepard says something vaguely resembling Your choice = instant awesome exciting gameplay.

KoTOR and DA:O used full sentences for protagonists, but they were not voiced in these games (everyone else was).

 

[Jestai]

6 choices with the wheel? More like 5^layers_of_investigate+1! Please, bring this infinitely powerful mechanism to D:OS.

Also, I tend to get lost easily if the good answers are not physically over the bad answers. Colors could also help.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

So, uh how's itemizing coming along? Diablo-ey or that thing that was mentioned with each weapon having a specific advantage and all that?

 

[SCO]

Ban Jestai for inappropriate internet sarcasm directed towards impressionable developers.

 

[Grunker]

6 choices with the wheel? More like 5^layers_of_investigate+1! Please, bring this infinitely powerful mechanism to D:OS.

That's the way the wheel's been used so far.

Mechanic being used badly =/= bad mechanic.

I don't really see much difference between the wheel and interactive text - only their graphical representation differ.

 

[Infinitron]

That doesn't make any sense when the reactivity spans across these "chunks". You say as if reactivity is contained within this discrete mission chunks, and that's patently false.

No, that's not what I meant. Those linear chunks still simplify the game's reactivity. If you don't understand why this is, I'm not going to explain it you. Hint: Age of Decadence uses teleportation for the same reason.

And I have to repeat myself a second time that I'm not making any comparisons. My argument has nothing to do with if the wheel is suitable for D:OS type of games. Only that you can have a complex dialogue system with the wheel.

But you have to make comparisons. Alpha Protocol's dialogue is "complex" and "reactive" only when compared to other games with the same type of linear popamole structure. It's relatively simple structure allows the designers to reduce the number of inputs and outputs in the dialogue segments, hence dialogue wheels.

 

[MicoSelva]

I don't really see much difference between the wheel and interactive text - only their graphical representation differ.

Yes, the main difference is that the graphical representation is obnoxious when it comes to the wheel. Not only we can only see a limited number of options at a time, but also they must be rather short.
The disadvantage when it comes to full sentences is rather obvious, but even with keyowrds, the wheel is not equal to listing. If I had 10+ dialog options to choose, the wheel would only slow down the game, because I would have to "Investigate" into branches to see some of my choices, while with listing I would see all of them at once.

 

[sea]

Dialogue wheel makes a lot of sense in fully voiced games, such as Mass Effect. You do not want to show players full sentences in dialogs in games like this because all the voice-work for the PC would go to waste. Who would wait to hear the PC speak his part if he already knows what is going to be said?
Instead You choose one or two words and pray that Commander Shepard says something vaguely resembling Your choice = instant awesome exciting gameplay.

Remember the aliens in KotOR and how they used the same alien speech loops over subtitles? I wonder, in a lower-budget game, what people would think if you had the vast majority or even all characters speak that way. You wouldn't have the boringness of having just blank silence, but you'd also have the ability to convey emotion through tone of dialogue, if not the words themselves. In fact, I suspect KotOR II used more non-English-speaking characters specifically to stretch the budget out more to save it for more significant characters. It's not so different from having Baldur's Gate style "speech blurbs" to go along with conversation text.

Alpha Protocol's dialogue is "complex" and "reactive" only when compared to other games with the same type of linear popamole structure. It's relatively simple structure allows the designers to reduce the number of inputs and outputs in the dialogue segments, hence dialogue wheels.

Bullshit until proven. Give at least a few examples of games with more reactive dialogue. I should note that the major characters in Alpha Protocol can all change (live or die, be friendly or antagonistic, etc.) based on the player's choices, that many individual conversations or sequences can be completely different based on what a character thinks of the player, the order in which the player has gone through the story, that lots of specific decisions made have specific consequences at various points in the story, modified by the other above factors, and so on.

 

[Grunker]

Remember the aliens in KotOR and how they used the same alien speech loops over subtitles? I wonder, in a lower-budget game, what people would think if you had the vast majority or even all characters speak that way.

PLEASE GOD NO, I hated alien voice overs in KotOR. A whole game full of them? Holy jesus.

 

[Infinitron]

Bullshit until proven. Give at least a few examples of games with more reactive dialogue.

That's not the point. I'm not saying Alpha Protocol isn't reactive. I'm saying the game's constrained structure allows it to remain reactive while using a simplified/streamlined dialogue interface - the dialogue wheel.

What if you could start the game, immediately go up to Yancey and blow his brains out, as opposed to being allowed to do such things only at plot mandated moments? What if you could do things like that, at will, any time you wanted? How would the dialogue wheel deal with that number of inputs?

It's easier to be "reactive" when you have a reduced possibility space to be reactive within.

 

[Lancehead]

That doesn't make any sense when the reactivity spans across these "chunks". You say as if reactivity is contained within this discrete mission chunks, and that's patently false.

No, that's not what I meant. Those linear chunks still simplify the game's reactivity. If you don't understand why this is, I'm not going to explain it you. Hint: Age of Decadence uses teleportation for the same reason.

That doesn't necessarily simplify it. If you have a more sandbox approach you drop scripting and do things through mechanics, such as faction system. What it does is makes everything predetermined whereas a sandbox approach allows some emergence.

And I have to repeat myself a second time that I'm not making any comparisons. My argument has nothing to do with if the wheel is suitable for D:OS type of games. Only that you can have a complex dialogue system with the wheel.

But you have to make comparisons.

What? You make comparison if the proposal is if the wheel is equally suitable for different types of games. My argument is that you can have a complex dialogue system with the wheel, and I'm presenting evidence for that. If my argument is not that the wheel is suitable for a certain type of game, then why would I examine the suitability of the wheel for that particular type of game?

Alpha Protocol's dialogue is "complex" and "reactive" only when compared to other games with the same type of linear popamole structure. It's relatively simple structure allows the designers to reduce the number of inputs and outputs in the dialogue segments, hence dialogue wheels.

Alpha Protocol's narrative structure is anything but simple, its complexity and reactivity is comparable to games such as P:ST, MotB, and New Vegas, even if the approach is different.

 

[Infinitron]

Alpha Protocol's narrative structure is anything but simple

Yes, it is.

 

[sea]

That's not the point. I'm not saying Alpha Protocol isn't reactive. I'm saying the game's constrained structure allows it to remain reactive while using a simplified/streamlined dialogue interface - the dialogue wheel.

What if you could start the game, immediately go up to Yancey and blow his brains out, as opposed to being allowed to do such things only at plot mandated moments? What if you could do things like that, at will, any time you wanted? How would the dialogue wheel deal with that number of inputs?

It's easier to be "reactive" when you have a reduced possibility space to be reactive within.

I know what you mean, but it doesn't excuse the silliness of what you said.

Can you kill Gorion or Koveres in Baldur's Gate?

Can you kill Uriel Septim or Sean Bean in Oblivion?

Can you kill the Overseer in Fallout?

Can you kill your companions in Ultima VII? (actually, I forget if you actually can do it)

These are all "more open ended games" with "more open ended gameplay" than Alpha Protocol and they all have the same limitations: because they have stories to tell and they know their stories won't work if they give unbridled freedom to the player. In some cases here they might even let you kill key story-related characters. Does it affect the story at all? Fuck no.

You hold up Alpha Protocol as if it is some super-linear experience. And it is, in a way: you can't do things the writers and designers didn't anticipate. I'm saying in practice it doesn't matter at all, because I can't think of a single game with any sort of explicit story which provides more freedom. Most "open ended" games give the player significantly less narrative freedom than Alpha Protocol does.

I can think of very few games which realistically respond to the player going on mass murder sprees or killing the antagonist right at the very beginning, so please enlighten me of this. It's also funny how (and I pointed this out in another thread) that the only example of player freedom that can be articulated is "herp derp, player can slaughter everyone in the world". Well goodie, the game lets me kill people for no reason. How very empowering to my entertainment experience.

Again, tell me a few games that give you as much narrative freedom as Alpha Protocol - not games that keep the narrative consequence and impact tucked away in tiny little boxes that it only opens when the player has hit designated plot points.

 

[Niektory]

PLEASE GOD NO, I hated alien voice overs in KotOR. A whole game full of them? Holy jesus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh-HDrLS_do
Ohehoheniahehoheneniaheho.