Interview Exciting Oblivion persuasion mini-game is revealed!

[Section8]

Fallout dialogue (or most classic CRPG dialogue for that matter) does not involve any player skill (unless you count reading comprehension ). As such, they're not gaming at all. The ability to choose a response to dialogue in these kind of systems is equivalent to the ability to choose whether you go to Redding or Broken Hills first.

Not exactly true. Fallout's dialogue is analogious to any other element of an RPG system. A higher character stat (Speech skill) gives the player more tools (responses) and the player must use simple problem solving to succeed at what they're attempting. That's really no different to a combatant having more tools (aimed shots, etc) due to a higher Small Guns skill. The character skill affects the degree of reasonable choices available, with which the player applies problem-solving skills to.

If you take away the need for player skill, then you're getting rid of the "game" part of "role playing game." And you may argue that you're not "gaming" when you're picking appropriate dialogue choices, but most of the time, you're doing it for a reason, even if that reason is in character. There's a reward of some kind, be it information, a quest trigger, the chance to barter, etc.

Maia, Fallout's dialogue was a sort of mini game, but there's a difference between choosing a smart response and clicking as fast as you can on a circle while looking at a NPC's face. If you can't understand that, well...

Lumpy, from Maia's first post in this thread:

Now, I fully understand the consternation provoked by the persuasion minigame and continuing lack of real dialogues. But IMHO, it is still improvement over MW, although an extremely small one and certainly not what most fans and critics would have preferred.

 

[MrBrown]

Not exactly true. Fallout's dialogue is analogious to any other element of an RPG system. A higher character stat (Speech skill) gives the player more tools (responses)

Yeah, but that's part of the character building game, not the dialogue game. Character building encompasses many other facets in FO as well, so I'm not sure if it alone would make the dialogue system gamist.

...and the player must use simple problem solving to succeed at what they're attempting. That's really no different to a combatant having more tools (aimed shots, etc) due to a higher Small Guns skill. The character skill affects the degree of reasonable choices available, with which the player applies problem-solving skills to.

They are somewhat similar, but only because the combat in FO was extremely simplistic as well.

The only player skill dialogue in FO used was the ability to recognize the right line(s) from the bad ones, and often simply recognizing the one you got because of your Speech skill. I wouldn't say this is very enjoyable as a game at all.

And you may argue that you're not "gaming" when you're picking appropriate dialogue choices, but most of the time, you're doing it for a reason, even if that reason is in character. There's a reward of some kind, be it information, a quest trigger, the chance to barter, etc.

I don't think simply having a reward makes it gamist. It sounds like Pavlov's dogs - recognize the right line, get reward - recognize the right line, get reward.

I think it needs to be a bit more complex than that.

 

[Section8]

The only player skill dialogue in FO used was the ability to recognize the right line(s) from the bad ones, and often simply recognizing the one you got because of your Speech skill. I wouldn't say this is very enjoyable as a game at all.

Ah, but it's probably more enjoyable as a game than Oblivion's persuasion. But the whole point is that combat in games tend to be the only thing fleshed out into something that could be a game on it's own merits, and yet there's just as much potential for non-combat game elements to have a much broader implementation than a single die roll.

Bethesda have done something more interesting than a single die roll, but being Bethesda, they missed the mark by a long shot.

I don't think simply having a reward makes it gamist. It sounds like Pavlov's dogs - recognize the right line, get reward - recognize the right line, get reward.

I think it needs to be a bit more complex than that.

Oh, I agree entirely, but I was just trying to defend the notion that expanding the non-combat elements of an RPG, by adding well integrated "mini-games" is a good idea, it's just Oblivion's specific implementation that's an an abject failure from a design perspective.

 

[MrBrown]

Ah, but it's probably more enjoyable as a game than Oblivion's persuasion.

It's probably more enjoyable because of the narration, or storytelling elements. That is, because reading actual well written text is enjoayble.

But not because of any challenge it presents to the player.

Oh, I agree entirely, but I was just trying to defend the notion that expanding the non-combat elements of an RPG, by adding well integrated "mini-games" is a good idea,

I agree with that 100%... Well, assuming that making a "gamist" game (that is, a game where the main fun is in the challenges it creates) is what you want.

I'd start a thread about how to make such a sub-game (as I'd rather call it) viable, but I have no ideas on that aspect myself. At least not yet.


To clarify, I was disagreeing with the claim that the classic-CRPG dialogue of FO is a mini-game; it's certainly a clear subset of the game, similarly to say, how movies or cutscenes are, but it's not much of a game. And combat usually is clearly a sub-game, although FOs was particularly simplistic in execution (most of the differences came about in character skill).

 

[Lumpy]

Maia, Fallout's dialogue was a sort of mini game, but there's a difference between choosing a smart response and clicking as fast as you can on a circle while looking at a NPC's face. If you can't understand that, well...

Lumpy, from Maia's first post in this thread:

Now, I fully understand the consternation provoked by the persuasion minigame and continuing lack of real dialogues. But IMHO, it is still improvement over MW, although an extremely small one and certainly not what most fans and critics would have preferred.

I disagree, it's not an improvement. I do agree that the existance of 4 persuasion types, and the wedges is a good thing. However, the potentially good mini-game was ruined by the addition of player twitch skills - having to click as fast as you can.
I would have liked a mini game where you had the four options and wedges, but where it wasn't time dependant, and NPCs wouldn't show what they like immediately. You'd have to find out first, either by their personalities (which they will probably have, should all of them have unique monologues), or by trying various persuasion types. Such a mini-game would be fun for me, unlike the actual one.

 

[Micmu]

I understand the lockpicking minigame (because it DOES represent lockpicking), but how does clicking a colored circle or whatever (and as an addition to that, doing it quickly!) represent "persuasion"!?
Whole Disposition boosting concept is retarded. You can kill NPC's friends, beat the shit out of him, rob him, etc, until he hates you, then just play some tetris with him (or simply give him gold) and he's/she's again "I think you're a thief because you've stolen my heart!".
There should be certain limitations how much can you make someone like you (and especially how many times) by persuasion.