Interview Lionheart Team Q&A #16 @ RPGVault

[Vault Dweller]

maybe you also suck at considering any point of view that differs from yours.

Nope, it seems to me that you're the one who can't understand our point. I and other people here explained in a variety of ways why icons ruin gaming experience, yet you keep recycling your argument "how does it affect YOUR gameplay".

You don't like the icons and want them removed. The 'moron' you keep quoting doesn't like dialogues and wants them dumbed down. Can you see any sort of similarity between those positions? Why is your position so reasonable and his so stupid?

Well, first of all, his position is stupid because any person who refers to books, literature, writing as crap is stupid. Period.
Now, let's not waste time debating unrelated topics. I called him a moron, not his position, his position is of no relevance, as I'm not against it. I think the moron indicators are stupid, pointless, and serve no purpose, but that's up to Reflexive. My position is: I want to have an option to turn the icons off because I believe they would ruin a game for me.

Why should your desires be met and not the moron's?

Once again, I don't care about the morons, for all I care Reflexive can fill the game with morons-friendly features as long as they don't screw the game for other players who can actually enjoy the whole game. If Reflexive went out of its way to put the morons indicators in, it's only fitting that they provide an option to turn them off.

I think I've made the point fairly well that they DO improve the functionality of the Barter skill for example because you can see that skill at work - thus making the skill more useful - especially to players who might otherwise ignore passive skills

Uhh, they don't improve functionality, they can draw your attention to the fact that you are using certain skills, but they don't affect them in any way. They are just tags, visual aid for ... nevermind.

Wouldn't turning them off seriously impact on the enjoyment of a character that has tagged Speech and Barter for example?

All I ask for is an option, I'd leave the actual choice to a player. I'd rather risk not knowing where my speech skill kicks in, then having all quests spoiled. And yes, it should not be a big deal as they are just icons and don't have any functionality.

I notice you didn't comment at all on my alternate example of what gameplay could be like WITH icons. Did my example sound like fun or not?

It wasn't bad, but we are not talking about "what if" here. It's silly to consider imaginary reasons to give more weight to your argument. We have the screenshot, we have Cabal's quotes, let's stick to them.

Icons in no way interfere with that process - although they MIGHT alter the way you consider those choices, I'll give you that.

Well, better late then never, mate :D

Maybe some people don't like to be FORCED to read so much. Is that so evil?

No, it's stupid. I thought we had a deal, we don't complain about the lack of dialogues in Quake, and the morons don't complain about reading in CRPGs.

My point is and always has been, that if the icons make the game slightly more attractive....

....as long as they don't ruin the game for its primary audience, for surely all the people who planned and wrote the dialogues would like people to actually read them.

Look at Lionheart's story for a second. You are going to meet people like Cortes, da Vinci, Torquemada, Galileo for goodness sake!!!! Wouldn't that tempt to you read even a couple of the dialogues - icons notwithstanding?

Ok, here is what I think. I think that people who might be interested to learn more about famous historical figures, would do so without Lionheart's help. People who have no interest in history, wouldn't care much about them anyway, and they will probably think that they are fictional characters with weird names anyway.

You have a very strange idea of game design if you think they should include features that FORCE players to do anything....it's just a game to have fun with - I don't wan't to be FORCED to do anything thanks very much!

I don't want to force anybody, but i think that anybody who'd like to try a good RPG should not seek a way to bypass one of its best feature.

 

[DrattedTin]

Oooh, burned!

 

[Voss]

Skorp, its also worth pointing out that there is a difference between icons that indicate you'll be using a certain skill, (which is just informative to the player) and icons which are used to point out to the absurdly dense that saying goodby leaves a conversation, threatening someone is hostile, and mystically letting you know if you want to skip everything you should click this one dialogue choice and anything else is likely to be unimportant or flavor text anyway.

Particularly since it is an RPG and getting quests should not be the focus of the dialogue as much as interaction...and there should be multiple ways of getting quests, even from the same person. How about the ways you could approach the witch about Nostradamus? Rather than just asking for info on him? A sudden violent assault, followed by demands? An appeal to her conscience? Offering the mercy of God to lift the burden of her sins in exchange for helping you on your holy quest? Or just killing her and taking her journal? (See, Role-playing. Not Icon clicking. Isn't this little sidebar explaining the obvious points made in this paragraph rather annoying?)

That should really be (or rather, should have been, since its gold already) the focus of the dialogue rather than silly little icons that point out the painfully obvious.

 

[Skorpios]

Somehow, I'm not feeling the heat.

Nope, it seems to me that you're the one who can't understand our point. I and other people here explained in a variety of ways why icons ruin gaming experience, yet you keep recycling your argument "how does it affect YOUR gameplay".

But YOU keep recycling your argument that the icons make people click mindlessly through the game - again, I assume you don't want to play that way, so what is the affect on your personal gaming style - the dialogue text is still there to interact with as well. Why are you so concerned if someone DOES mindlessly click through Lionheart on a computer on the other side of the planet - how does that fact affect YOU?

My position is: I want to have an option to turn the icons off because I believe they would ruin a game for me.

That's not a position that's an opinion - if the icons ruin the game then obviously Lionheart isn't the game for you. Lionheart with the option to turn the icons off or no icons obviously is a game you would play - your choice, pure and simple. Reflexive are under no compunction to make any alterations to the game whatsoever -they've just lost your sale - maybe they will get more from the 'morons' you seem to hate so much, maybe not. Their decision, their loss. I'm not defending their decision so much as their right to make that decision - it is THEIR game not yours. They obviously believe that the risk of upsetting a few hardcore players balanced against being able to market their game to a wider audience is worth taking. Remember, there are plenty of good games that didn't sell very well - so why is their decision so evil?

Uhh, they don't improve functionality, they can draw your attention to the fact that you are using certain skills, but they don't affect them in any way. They are just tags, visual aid for ... nevermind.

Isn't the knowledge that you are about to use or skill or even CAN use a skill in a certain situation bound to affect how you use those skills? An icon doesn't have to have an immediate in-game function to be important - look at Perk icons.

Doesn't selecting a cool Perk that improves a particular skill make you feel good? It doesn't actually do anything right then, but it certainly affects how you use the skil!! All the good stuff happens in the background with Perks - much like the dialogue icons! OK, let's remove the Perks too! They FORCE me to build my character a certain way to qualify for them!! There are no surprises! Perks should just pop up when your character qualifies for them with no explanation!

It wasn't bad, but we are not talking about "what if" here. It's silly to consider imaginary reasons to give more weight to your argument. We have the screenshot, we have Cabal's quotes, let's stick to them.

I thought I made it quite clear that I was simply responding to DarkUnderlord's "what-if" scenarios. If he doesn't stick purely to the quotes and screenshot to make his point, why should I?

Let's say that instead of the sword icon next to the "If you are a witch, then you must be destroyed" line, there was a quest icon, because, when you threaten to kill her, she quickly offers you a quest so that she can live...

If you are telling me to 'stick to the facts' then tell him too, simple as that. Again, looking at his example it isn't even a very good one, because you could gain a quest through killing her or she could put a curse on you so you gain a quest to get rid of it. There is no one CERTAIN outcome like he suggests if Reflexive put any creativity into the dialogues (which I believe they have.) That is the point I was tryig to make. The icons can still surprise you if the writing is good. If the writing is good, and the dialogue system surprises you isn't that basically what you want anyway Vault Dweller?

No, it's stupid. I thought we had a deal, we don't complain about the lack of dialogues in Quake, and the morons don't complain about reading in CRPGs.

But if I design a Quake game with dialogues people are bound to complain - but if I believe in my design and think I can sell it, don't I have the right to make the game with whatever features I choose? Maybe it won't sell well to the Quake crowd, maybe it won't sell to hardcore RPGers - doesn't automatically mean there is NO audience out there for it.

....as long as they don't ruin the game for its primary audience, for surely all the people who planned and wrote the dialogues would like people to actually read them.

Primary audience = you, right? What if Reflexive don't see you as the 'primary audience' maybe they are aiming at a different audience (see above). Again, let me ask you: how do the icons STOP you from reading all the dialouges they've written????

Ok, here is what I think. I think that people who might be interested to learn more about famous historical figures, would do so without Lionheart's help. People who have no interest in history, wouldn't care much about them anyway, and they will probably think that they are fictional characters with weird names anyway.

You haven't visited the Interplay forum much have you? There are literally dozens of threads discussing the historical figures and the alternate history influences on Lionheart by all sorts of players - judging by some of the posts they range from Diablo fans to history professors. I think you are being overly dismissive of this factor. If they are interested enough to argue about all sorts of historical points on the boards, why wouldn't they read about them in the dialogues?

I don't want to force anybody, but i think that anybody who'd like to try a good RPG should not seek a way to bypass one of its best features.

'Best feature' in YOUR judgement - how does a new player automatically know that complex dialogues are a CRPG's best feature? You are assuming a level of knowledge that not everyone has. There are literally millions of people who have never played a CRPG. Maybe some of them would quite enjoy it if they found the right game. Seeing a feature like the icons might be a trigger to convince them to experiment. We are talking about people who might not know a good RPG from Diablo. (Remember, misleading labelling like 'Action RPG' has confused the issue for many gamers.) Why not have features that they feel more comfortable with. Sure, put in 70,000 pages of dialogue for the hardcore players - but don't scare off other potential players by cramming all those pages down their throats before they've even got a handle on the game - or more importantly before they've even BOUGHT the game.

Also they are not SEEKING a way to bypass anything. When they play the game they can use the icons, they can use the text, it comes down to choice - so when has choice become a bad thing? Isn't it what you are arguing for? Even Diablo fans read the limited dialogue in their games - why wouldn't they read more of the same in Lionheart if they try it? If the writing is good it should draw them in even deeper. I assume that is what Reflexive is hoping. The icons are there for the people who don't want to go any deeper but still want to enjoy the game. Again, is this a crime against humanity?

 

[DrattedTin]

No, choice would be making it an option to disable the icons.

 

[Skorpios]

Skorp, its also worth pointing out that there is a difference between icons that indicate you'll be using a certain skill, (which is just informative to the player) and icons which are used to point out to the absurdly dense that saying goodby leaves a conversation, threatening someone is hostile, and mystically letting you know if you want to skip everything you should click this one dialogue choice and anything else is likely to be unimportant or flavor text anyway.

Particularly since it is an RPG and getting quests should not be the focus of the dialogue as much as interaction...and there should be multiple ways of getting quests, even from the same person. How about the ways you could approach the witch about Nostradamus? Rather than just asking for info on him? A sudden violent assault, followed by demands? An appeal to her conscience? Offering the mercy of God to lift the burden of her sins in exchange for helping you on your holy quest? Or just killing her and taking her journal? (See, Role-playing. Not Icon clicking. Isn't this little sidebar explaining the obvious points made in this paragraph rather annoying?).

Voss, I'm not disputing that - I'm not saying the icons are perfect I'm disputing the fact they make the game unplayable. Look at the dialogue system as a whole - Reflexive have decided to use icons for several different functions - some useful, some not so useful as far as I am concerned. I'm still very interested in the game. So there is at least one paying customer who isn't greatly affected by the icons - call me a moron if you must.

As for your example (even though it is made up - see Vault Dweller's post above) what if EVERY option you described had an icon next to it (sword for verbal assault, speech skill for conscience, barter for expiation of sins, or exit to leave dialogue and attack). Isn't that STILL roleplaying as you define it? Wouldn't the experience of playing it be almost identical? Again, we are not talking about the icons here, we are talking about the quality of the dialogue options and the roleplaying they enable. The icons are a side issue in this regard.

 

[Sabotai]

Usually I'm all for lengthy, thought out posts, especially at RPG Codex. While reading this thread I somehow went comatose. When I woke up I discovered my keyboard soaked in saliva, completely ruined. I hold this thread responsible for ruining my keyboard, but I'm a forgiving guy so I won't sue. Others might be less forgiving, so to minimize liability I suggest locking this thread.

My position is: I want to have an option to turn the icons off because I believe they would ruin a game for me.

That's not a position that's an opinion - if the icons ruin the game then obviously Lionheart isn't the game for you.

Position means exactly the same as opinion.

 

[GreenNight]

I've been skipping through this thread because I wasn't in the mood of reading long texts, but I noted down the tactic in case I need it for a discussion, make the answer so long that only a tiny fraction of the oponents answer :wink:

Let's see, we have two kind of icons, the ones that thell what ability you are about to use (speech, barter) and the ones that tell you what is going to happen (fight, quest, exit dialog). With the former I have absolutely no problem, just like a lot of the people here, but the later...

An icon is visually more attracting than the corresponding line of dialog, so having those will mean that the average person will know what happens with a line of text before reading it. That means no more surprise dialog outcomes.

Take the dialog with one person in the hub (I think), in Fallout, that he sells iguana sticks made with human flesh. You can blackmail him, and ask him money for your silence. There are different options of money/week. If there were exit icons I would have seen that the answer I chose would end the dialog (200 caps) and some other would do it too, while perhaps the lower ones would assure the dialog continues. What do you think I would have chosen in that case? Probably I would have been able to earn some money through him, and not asked so much trying to barter "manualy".

And how long in advance do the icons appear? because if it's not in the last action then the dialog in arcanum where you talk with the first person who wants to kill you would leave no other choice than to let Virgil speak. Perhaps there's another way to not fight, but I haven't discovered it. And that would be really a discovery for me, but it could be fairly easy in Lionheart: This option leads to attack, this too, this to exit,.. uhm.. hard choice.

And that's the key. I don't want to know beforehand the consequences of an action. I want to learn them the hard way. Discovering hidden quests in dialoges through an option I didn't know that was there is one of the best things in CRPGs. Your opinion may be different of course. That's the reason I also believe the indicators should be optional. They have them? ok, make the masses happy, but don't forget the hardcore gamer, specially when the thing he is asking for is to optionally disable a visual aid.

Take care.

 

[Skorpios]

Greenlight - I'm not sure how a dialogue from Fallout proves anything about Lionheart but I'll bite.

That means no more surprise dialog outcomes

How so? Remember the sword icon doesn't automatically mean a battle, just indicates a hostile tone. Cabal himself (check DarkUnderlord's quotes above) backs me up on this, so some NPCs might take umbrage and attack you instantly (say a guard), some might just be upset with you (say a merchant, who might then charge higher prices), others might even give you something (say a beggar who tells you a rumour to get you off his back). Until you actually try the 'heavy line' you have no idea what the outcome might be just a general idea that in most (but not all) cases the results will be negative even if combat doesn't start up.

So, if you don't know what will happen next (but only have a reasonable guess) doesn't that mean the outcome will be a surprise at least sometimes? At least as surprising as a dialogue without icons where you usually take a guess anyway based on your prior RPG experiences?

Take the dialog with one person in the hub (I think), in Fallout, that he sells iguana sticks made with human flesh. You can blackmail him, and ask him money for your silence. There are different options of money/week. If there were exit icons I would have seen that the answer I chose would end the dialog (200 caps) and some other would do it too, while perhaps the lower ones would assure the dialog continues. What do you think I would have chosen in that case? Probably I would have been able to earn some money through him, and not asked so much trying to barter "manualy".

Well seeing as Lionheart is a different game how can you say which icons go where? This sounds like a perfect dialogue for the use of the barter skill doesn't it? I assume in a Lionheart situation the dialogue would look something like this:

(The player, a member of the Inquisition, has uncovered a family of Demokin in Nueva Barcelona. Now he threatens the father of the family with the attentions of the Inquisition.)

NPC: How much do you want to keep my secret? Think of my family's suffering if the Inquisition takes me away! I might be tainted by magic - but I'm no danger to anyone!

Player:
[Quest icon} Perhaps there is something you can do for me. I seek the Lost Street of the accursed magic-wielders. Tell me where it is and I will let you and your hell-spawn go free. (Obviously, this option only appears if you are on the Inquisition's "Hunt the Wielders" quest)
[Barter icon] 50 gp or I turn you in to the Inquisition.
[Barter icon] 100 gp or I turn you over to the tender mercies of Torquemada.
[Barter icon] 500 gp or the eternal fires of Hell that surely await you will be a relief after the tortures the Holy Inquisition will put you through to scourge your tainted soul.
[Sword icon] I want everything you own you soulless heretic or to the pits of the Inquisition you go!
[Exit] Forget it, go in peace, just don't let me see your tainted face again, heretic!

(Later in the game, if the Demokin and his family survives this encounter you can turn him in to the Inquisition ANYWAY to gain favour from your superiors.)

See you wouldn't put an exit icon next to ANY of the options that WOULD be silly. The exit icon only shows you the quickest way to exit a conversation with no other effects (effectively it is the ESCAPE key) that doesn't stop other choices closing the dialogue if appropriate (if combat starts for example - otherwise there would be an exit icon next to the sword icon too!).

Instead you could choose whichever amount you think you could get away with based on your barter skill (and greed). THEN the game would calculate your success or failure based on your Barter skill . Or you could just try to bully everything out of him! Probably in that case he would attack you in a desperate attempt to silence you or flee the scene, depending on your character's level.

If for example you went for 500 gp and failed, chances are he would end the dialogue something like this:

NPC: You greedy cur! Better that I suffer the tortures of the Inquisition than my family should starve. Do your worst! See you in Hell! [Dialogue closed - NPC attacks/flees]

If you succeed maybe this happens:

NPC: Aaah, my children's bowls will go empty for many a month, but I have no choice to keep them safe from the attentions of the Inquisition. Here is the gold - I hope I never see you again! [Dialogue closed - Player gains 500gp, NPC leaves]

A similar situation - but using a different dialogue system to achieve a good roleplaying result I feel. Just because Lionheart is the spiritual successor to Fallout doesn't mean it has to do EVERYTHING exactly the same! Do you want a sad, pale Fallout clone with magic instead of guns?

Yes, yes I know I"m making more stuff up but if Greenlight can bring in examples from FALLOUT for crying out loud to 'prove' how bad icons are in Lionheart, then I think I'm allowed to pluck rebuttals from my imagination. Does it prove anything to implant whole conversations from one game to another? Can anyone say that my blackmail example plays any worse than many CRPGs already out on the market or that it is impossible that something like is in Lionheart? Are the results of that particular conversation totally predictable even with the icons as some of you claim?

Now that I've mentioned quest icons - which seem to be the biggest bone of contention amongst us here I'd like to respond to a point a couple of people have raised against the quest icons - arising I think from the uncertainty we are all labouring under about when the quest icons actually kick in and exactly how spoilerish they are. No official word yet on the Interplay board I'm afraid, but here are some further thoughts.

Some people have made the point that the quest icons make your character seem 'psychic' with the unerring ability to find things to do while talking to people. Well, apart from the fact that this is a problem in every game - I mean, isn't it a bit of a giveaway that the only NPCs who want to talk to you almost always have a spare job or quest sitting at the back of their minds? Do you slap your forehead in shock when they tell you that they DO have something you can help them out with?

If we stick to my original screenshot (as Vault Dweller has requested we ALL do - sorry Greenlight), then the big fat quest icon is stuck right on the question about Nostradamus. As this is a sole screenshot we have no idea whether it is just my characters 'psychic' powers that have activated this option. Chances are earlier in the game your character met someone who said something like this:

"If you seek the seer, Nostradamus, you must speak with the Weird Woman who lives somewhere in the Pinhead Mountains."

Now you don't have to be psychic to want to ask her about Nostradamus straight away after you spend 3 days searching through the mountains for her! Again, I can't PROVE this from just one screenshot and no actual experience of the game itself - but will you at least agree that it sounds logical? One NPC directing you to another in pursuit of a quest is a fairly standard RPG plot device after all.

I'm also assuming that being a major figure in Lionheart, the Nostradamus quest is HUGE and involves many more NPCs than just the Weird Woman. Chances are in this screenshot, the player has been searching for Nostradamus for quite a while, so the quest icon next to that option is hardly a spoiler. All it does is focus your attention that your quest is continuing and that you've made a major breakthrough (you've found the Weird Woman) so get in there and ask about him already!

How about the ways you could approach the witch about Nostradamus? Rather than just asking for info on him? A sudden violent assault, followed by demands? An appeal to her conscience? Offering the mercy of God to lift the burden of her sins in exchange for helping you on your holy quest? Or just killing her and taking her journal?

Does that have anything to do with the icons? Aren't you writing about the TEXT options for approaching the Weird Woman? I can't deny that the example you give sounds like a great roleplaying experience but are you saying that EVERY dialogue in a game should have that much detail? How many games can you mention actually do that? That is an immense amount of writing for just one encounter.

Plus, for all we know there ARE encounters like that in Lionheart, it just happens that the one example we have so far isn't quite that complex. Anyway, if you click on the quest icon maybe you HAVE all those options. The player's actual words are:

"Perhaps you can help me, I seek the seer known as Nostradamus"

Who knows how she replies? She might say anything from:

"I know the seer well, but he has never mentioned you, spiritbearer - why do you seek him?" (The dialogue then branches off in several directions depending on the player's skills and which faction he is a member of.)
"Are you sure you know what you are asking for? This knowledge is perilous indeed and I will not part with it easily." (Again, the player can try Speech, Barter or Intimidation to get the information from her with varying chances of success.)
"The great seer's location is hidden from my sight, all I can see is a laughing donkey ridden by a fool." (She refuses to say any more, but judicious inquries in the area will probably lead the player to the local tavern "The Jester's Ass" where they can find further information about Nostradamus.)

I think you can see that all those possibilities are well within the realms of possibility and all of them seem fun to play through - with some being more intricate than others. The point I'm trying to make is that if the dialogue is interesting and well-designed, the impact of the icons on roleplaying is only minimal - is that unreasonable?

Perhaps she offers to give you the secret of Nostradamus's whereabouts for a huge amount of gold (with the option to haggle with your barter skill), or a certain item, or you could use your speech skill to convince her to give you the information for free, or perhaps you can intimidate her with threats of reporting her to the Inquisition. Or you can just exit the conversation and kill her as you suggested and search her effects. Can you prove any of those options AREN'T in that conversation, hiding just one click away through the quest icon? That's the danger of criticising a whole dialogue system from a handful of screen shots.

Let's take a more basic example. Your character is walking through a village and sees a small girl standing in the street. You click on her and the dialogue screen opens up (surprise! surprise!).

Little girl: Miffy! MIffy! Where are you MIffy! [begins to cry]

Player:

[Speech icon]: There, there little girl, stop crying, what's the matter? (Possibly this option is only visible if you have a certain Speech skill and/or Charisma level)
[Blank] What's the matter with you?
[Sword icon]: Out of my way you snivelling brat!
[Exit icon]: Sorry, little girl, I have to be going now.

(Now I am working on the hypothesis that quest icons only show up when you actually have a chance to gain that quest - but I admit that I could very well be mistaken. In that case add a quest icon to the first 2 options.)

If you choose the first option and succeed with a Speech skill check you convince the girl to stop crying and she tells you:

NPC: I've lost Miffy! She's only a little kitten and she's lost!

If you fail the speech check or choose the second option you have to ask her (politely) 2 more times what the matter is before she stops crying and tells you about her cat.

If you choose the sword (bully) choice at any time she runs off and tells her parents about the 'bad person' which has ramifications for you in this village later in the game.

Otherwise you have the options:

[Quest icon]: Perhaps I can help you find your cat. What does he look like? Where did you see her last?
[Sword icon]: Why are you bothering me about your stupid pet! Stop wasting my time!
[Exit]: Sorry little girl, perhaps your parents can help you look, I must be on my way.

I'll stop there but in that simple example, how did the quest icon spoil anything? Even if it did appear in the opening dialogue screen (which I'm not a hundred percent sure of but still we've already established that it is standard in RPGs that anyone who will talk to you has a job for you). How was that experience any different from an equivalent dialogue in any other RPG? (Apart from my crap writing skills, but remember we are focussing on the effect of the icons - the actual content of the dialogue is a separate issue.)

I DID try to keep this short, but failed miserably, but you all raised some good points. So I did my best to make it an interesting read at least. Sorry guys!

 

[Saint_Proverbius]

You know, I thought the little skill/attribute tags in Neverwinter Nights' dialogue was pretty sad, especially since the dialogue for that game was pretty canned and shortenned down to a sentence or so for each reply from the player. It just seems like you're looking at the man behind the curtain a bit too much, going from an interactive experience to CLICK THIS CHOICE IF YOU WANT TO BE THE BADASS/SMOOTH OPERATOR. It makes dialogue seem less fluid and more like a mechanical operation that needs performing.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I and other people here explained in a variety of ways why icons ruin gaming experience, yet you keep recycling your argument "how does it affect YOUR gameplay".

so what is the affect on your personal gaming style

And there we go again *sighs* See the first 3 pages of this thread

But YOU keep recycling your argument that the icons make people click mindlessly through the game

My argument if you've been paying attention is that the icons could ruin a game for many people who prefer to discover quests on their own instead of being told of them in advance

how does that fact affect YOU?

*speaks patiently* I don't want my choices to be influenced by knowing the outcome of each particular line

They obviously believe that the risk of upsetting a few hardcore players balanced against being able to market their game to a wider audience is worth taking.

*mumbles something very negative about wider audience

Remember, there are plenty of good games that didn't sell very well - so why is their decision so evil?

I did not say it's evil, neutral, or good. It's stupid and pointless, but it's their right. They did it, I'm happy for them and their marketing department, and now I expect them to do the smart thing and give us the freaking options to turn it off, unfortunately as Cabal said it's not optional

An icon doesn't have to have an immediate in-game function to be important - look at Perk icons. Doesn't selecting a cool Perk that improves a particular skill make you feel good? It doesn't actually do anything right then, but it certainly affects how you use the skil!!

What the hell are you talking about? Do you like to argue that much that you throw everything in regardless of whether it make sense or not? Perks actually improve something (skills, attributes, abilities) or add something (awareness, empathy). The skill icons simply indicate that you are using your skill right now without adding anything to it. Surely you can grasp the concept of an in-di-ca-tor?

All the good stuff happens in the background with Perks - much like the dialogue icons!

No, nothing happens in the background, the icon simply tells you that you are using your skill now and that's it.

OK, let's remove the Perks too! They FORCE me to build my character a certain way to qualify for them!! There are no surprises! Perks should just pop up when your character qualifies for them with no explanation!

*takes handful of Aspirin pills* You can't compare Perks to the moron indicators, they have nothing in common. Perks are not supposed to be surprises, they are part of character development, they actually do something and ruin nothing. Icons do nothing, they are indicators, they ruin dialogues.

I thought I made it quite clear that I was simply responding to DarkUnderlord's "what-if" scenarios. If he doesn't stick purely to the quotes and screenshot to make his point, why should I?

DarkUnderlord's example was well within the lines, yours was pure fantasy. DU made a very valid point that illustrates the problem. There could be a quest indicator next to a line that you normally wouldn't say. That was his point. You went on imagining what would happen if you take a quest.

There is no one CERTAIN outcome like he suggests IF Reflexive put any creativity into the dialogues (which I believe they have.)

That's a very big IF, my friend. With all due respect Reflexive isn't Troika so I highly doubt that dialogues would be of that caliber

The icons can still surprise you if the writing is good. If the writing is good, and the dialogue system surprises you isn't that basically what you want anyway Vault Dweller?

How can they not ruin a surprise if they tell you what's going to happen next? The better the writing, the more they ruin.

but if I believe in my design and think I can sell it, don't I have the right to make the game with whatever features I choose?

Yes, yes, you have the right to do whatever you want, nobody's disputing Reflexive's right to do what they please.

Primary audience = you, right? What if Reflexive don't see you as the 'primary audience' maybe they are aiming at a different audience

What? I am not the primary audience? I suppose next you tell me that I'm not the centre of the universe anymore? Ridiculous!
When I say primary audience, I meant people who would play it as a RPG, not as an action RPG. If they aimed at a different audience, they should have designed a different game, like Harbinger

Again, let me ask you: how do the icons STOP you from reading all the dialouges they've written????

They don't stop me from reading, they stop me from discovering stuff on my own.

There are literally dozens of threads discussing the historical figures and the alternate history influences on Lionheart by all sorts of players - judging by some of the posts they range from Diablo fans to history professors.

So, and your point is? I said that "people who have no interest in history, wouldn't care much about them anyway", I never said that people especially those who visit Interplay boards don't like history.

'Best feature' in YOUR judgement - how does a new player automatically know that complex dialogues are a CRPG's best feature?

Because, sonny, I've been around for awhile. I'm 32, and I've seen many youngsters half my age who somehow got attracted to complex dialogues and making actual choices that matter without anybody holding their hand. Sure, when I was 18 I probably thought that the genre will die with us, but it didn't, there are people who would dig the hell out of it no matter what, and there are people who wouldn't like it no matter what and that's pretty much it.

The icons are there for the people who don't want to go any deeper but still want to enjoy the game. Again, is this a crime against humanity?

And I'm very happy that morons..err, I mean people who don't want to go any deeper can enjoy the game. Now, can I please have my option to go as deep as I want without something telling me what's going to happen next?

 

[Skorpios]

I know I write too much, but unfortunately THAT IS WHAT I DO...it's just my nature. Please accept my apologies for any headaches and eyestrain caused by my loquaciousness. Feel free to skim to the bold paragraphs for the major points of this very long post.

So to attempt to clarify things here is MY brief :!: impression of the reasons many of you dislike the icons so much and want them removed or made optional.

Overall, it seems that many people see the presence of the icons and roleplaying in Lionheart as completely incompatible.

The icons destroy the illusion* of choice in a dialogue because they tell you what will happen if you click on any particular choice. Much of the mystery and joy of exploring a dialogue is lost because the icons loudly telegraph what each choice will achieve and there are no surprises in dialogue. They also damage the immersion of the player into the conversation with jarring reminders that you are looking at a screen full of icons rather than actually conversing with the NPC.

*(I use the term 'illusion' because of course you DON'T have unlimited choices, just whatever the game's designers have scripted into the dialogues.)

Quests are 'broken' because the icons announce their presence even before you can ask about them - making dialogue in Lionheart nothing more than a robot-like series of clicks. (Click on NPC, click on quest, click on exit. Occasionally check Journal to actually see what the quests are, find the next NPC in the chain and repeat.)

The icons are insulting to all but the most ignorant players, assuming that they don't know what terms like 'goodbye' mean in a conversation or that "Die you bum!" is insulting. The icons don't do anything that a clearly written piece of text can't already do, making them entirely redundant.

The 'skill icons' (such as Speech and Barter) are tolerable but mainly because they serve no actual purpose other than as a visual aid. Their removal via a toggle would have no discernible impact on the game or how it is played.

On the other hand, the option to toggle the other icons off WOULD radically improve the roleplaying experience Lionheart provides.

The icons are nothing but Reflexive's cynical attempt to fool 'action gamers' (or 'morons' as Vault Dweller would have it) into buying Lionheart, and in the process they have betrayed the 'core audience' of this RPG by forcing this feature on them as well without even an on/off toggle.

Is that a fair summary of the views of the majority expressed on this thread?

Part of the problem here is the old half-full/half-empty way of looking at things. Most of you seem to look at the icons and see the end of all things RPG - the first step on a slippery slope that will lead to nothing but a handful of smiley icons acting as the dialogue interface in future games. I've attempted to raise positive points I can see about the icons, in an attempt to maybe find some middle ground but I seem to have failed. To be honest, it was also DarkUnderlord's 'moron indicators' remark that I found extremely offensive that got me fired up - the rest is history.

Another aspect is that much of this debate is based on ignorance as none of us has actually played the game or seen dialogue in action so we can't actually state definitively if it sucks or not. Whether quests are totally spoilt or not by icons is a major issue - and at the time of writing I don't have any official word on that.

Here then are my personal views on the icons, I don't expect anyone to agree or disagree with them - they are presented simply to try to explain where I am coming from:

Given my understanding of the illusion of choice (see above) presented by any game's dialogue system, I personally don't find the icons insulting or restrictive to my roleplaying. As long as Lionheart presents an interesting world, peopled with interesting characters to interact with, with interesting dialogue to read - I feel quite capable of roleplaying in that environment and enjoying myself even with the icons.

From what I've seen of Lionheart's background, I'm quietly confident that the game's plot and dialogues will have plenty of thrills and surprises locked away in a dialogue system at least as complex as an IWD game even if it doesn't reach the dizzy heights of PS:T. I DON'T expect it to be anywhere near the level of Diablo 2 - purely because of the existence of the Speech skill (thanks to Saint Proverbius and the other brave fans!!).

Personally I really like the inclusion of Speech and Barter icons as I see it giving passive skills a higher profile and a larger role to play in the game. When I play a diplomatic character I expect to feel the same same sense of achievement when I manage to swindle a major NPC out of an important quest item as when I play a combat-focussed character who finally takes down a dragon in single combat.

I like the fact that I can see my chosen skills 'in action' immediately, reinforcing the utility of those skills, encouraging me to invest in them so that I can pit those skills against even more powerful NPCs or dare even riskier situations. Much more satisfying I feel than having to guess whether they are effective or not in any given situation and risking valuable skill points accordingly. For me, the skill icons in dialogue are just as exciting and important as Perk icons in character development and weapons in combat.

Overall, I don't feel strongly about the icons because I don't see them affecting my gameplay very much at all (apart from the skill icons mentioned above). I love reading the dialogue in games like this so even a screen-wide flashing quest icon wouldn't stop me from reading every single option available to me. As I enjoy exploring the consequences of my actions (including dialogue choices) I just don't see them as a major influence on my gameplay decisions.

I have always been fascinated by 'alternate histories' so I will be delving as deeply as I can into Lionheart's plots and characters. Compared to that, the icons are only a minor feature to me.

Accordingly as far as Reflexive is concerned I'm more than happy to accept their explanation that the icons are an attempt to appeal to gamers outside of the 'hardcore community', and I personally feel that is a positive and understandable step. I don't feel in any way short-changed by this decision or the inclusion of the icons. Lionheart still looks like a fun game to play and explore to me and if Reflexive's decision means more people can enjoy it all the better.

As you can see - there is a huge gulf between my opinion and that of the majority of posters on this thread. I don't really see any way we can bridge that gulf so the point of this thread no longer exists (if it ever did.)

I am saddened by the general opinion expressed in this thread and oultined above that sees the icons as nothing but a negative feature of the game, and it is unfortunate for all of you who share that opinion that the icons are a fixed feature. As I could do nothing about that, I've attempted to raise the positive aspects I can see regarding the icons in the hope that they might help others see the same potential I see for a good game even with the icons in place. I seem to have failed miserably.

Of course I can't FORCE anyone to like the game, so perhaps my earlier 'gladiatorial' style was inappropriate, but again, terms like 'moron indicator' tended to put me in a more confrontational mood than was probably useful.

If my comments have been hurtful to anyone, or my arguments needlessly repetitive, aggressive and annoying, I apologise.

Astromarine is probably right, this thread could go on forever, simply because of the incompatibility between my views and the views of the majority. So I'm happy to leave it here. Hopefully my comments have been food for thought for some readers and they might give Lionheart the chance I personally feel it deserves.

Thank you all for a very entertaining (if sometimes frustrating) discussion.


PS: I still hate the term 'moron indicator' and reserve the right to say so wherever I see it used. Just because you don't like a feature is no reason to use such negative terms.

:!: (Well I TRIED, I really did, but the words kept flowing and I tried to be as clear as possible while not leaving anything out. plus it eventually evolved into what is probably my final post on this particular subject)

 

[Vault Dweller]

I know I write too much, but unfortunately THAT IS WHAT I DO

No problem, unlike Lionheart's newly found target audience, I won't complain about having too much to read :wink:

Is that a fair summary of the views of the majority expressed on this thread?

That is correct

To be honest, it was also DarkUnderlord's 'moron indicators' remark that I found extremely offensive that got me fired up - the rest is history.

Be careful, anger leads to the Dark Side

Another aspect is that much of this debate is based on ignorance as none of us has actually played the game. Whether quests are totally spoilt or not by icons is a major issue - and at the time of writing I don't have any official word on that.

That is a possibility, of course, and I'm glad that you admit that it is a major issue - which is all I asked of you, I did not asked you to change your opinion, I asked you to accept the validity of my concern.

...Skorpios explains where he stands...

I agree with many things that you wrote, Lionheart looks like a fine and rich game indeed filled with interesting locations and interesting NPCs. I'm looking forward to it as well.

As you can see - there is a huge gulf between my opinion and that of the majority of posters on this thread. I don't really see any way we can bridge that gulf so the point of this thread no longer exists

Funny thing is, there is no huge gulf. I'm glad that you have a different opinion, otherwise it would be boring if everybody agrees with each other all the time. I can see how you may not care about the icons, if you can see how the icons could ruin the dialogues for some people, then we have no argument, just 2 different opinions.

but again, terms like 'moron indicator' tended to put me in a more confrontational mood than was probably useful.

Out of curiosity, why do you find the term moron in regard to to the indicators and people who would use them to bypass dialogues so offensive?

If my comments have been hurtful to anyone, or my arguments needlessly repetitive, aggressive and annoying, I apologise.

Don't worry about, mate, it was a good discussion

Thank you all for a very entertaining (if sometimes frustrating) discussion.

And I thank you as well, for it could not have been possible without you :wink:

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Dear me, i should be working and instead i'm letting myself being dragged to this conversation :wink:

Part of the problem here is the old half-full/half-empty way of looking at things. Most of you seem to look at the icons and see the end of all things RPG - the first step on a slippery slope that will lead to nothing but a handful of smiley icons acting as the dialogue interface in future games.

Here's how i look at it.

You have a game which presents dialogue choices, like Fallout. Most of it is pre-programmed dialogue. You see the lines, you reason out what you should say among the choices, and say it. No biggie. Then, depending on your point allocation, some new dialogue options might surface - lines for the smart guy, lines for the strong guy, etc (even lines for the idiot character). But there is no warning as to that. Its all dependant on the player to handle, both the stats that might lead to dialogues and the outcomes of said dialogues.

Now, look at NWN. You have lines which are clearly marked as using a statistic as a means of furthering dialogue. Thats fine and dandy, but the question is, do we need it? Its an indicator that your character creation, or stat point allocation might provide usefull, but shouldn't you, the player, find it out for yourself, instead of being pointed to it?

One could discuss 'tis only a matter of preference, but the fact is that its an indicator.

Now, look at Lionheart - you get an indicator indicating outcomes of dialogues regardless of having the stats to influence it; you get indicators which will not help in dialogue itself, only in you getting trough it faster. No matter if your stats allow you to talk smart, dumb, wise, intelligent, or persuading, you will get an indicator to the outcome of a dialogue, no matter what. Again, we could discuss thats only a matter of preference, but will this help gamers?

Fallout had Empathy, which was a Perk (so, its not an initial gimmick) that allowed you to speciallize in dialogue outcomes, by revealing (trough the use of a colour), the possible outcome of a dialogue. Red didn't always meant the NPC would attack, and Blue didn't always mean you were leading to a dialogue outcome you'd like. Sometimes you had to go trough a red-coloured option to anger an NPC to make him do what you wanted. Sometimes, clicking a blue-coloured dialogue would only make the NPC listen to what he wanted you to say, not make you convince him of the urgency of your quest.

'Tis the joy of finding the pathways to the outcomes by yourself.

In NWN, you're shown that your points spend in Wisdom allow you to say something wise to the NPC. Or that your Charisma value might allow you to be suave and debonair and allow you to convince the less-than-bright girl into giving you a better reward. The problem with this? Being shown you could be wise did not help in the slightest. Being shown you could get a larger reward was superficial. Of course, that was the realm of D&D, and in computers that usually means being shown beforehand that your stats might be helpful in dialogue, but even then, the point of showing you could do that was shot down by the fact it didnt helped in the slightest.

Admitedly, NWN doesn't do a good job in those dialogues, but it still allows you to expect what will come next (even if it gives slight warnings at times).

Now, again, look at Lionheart. Your stats, now, are not even what's connected to the availability of those indicators. They are there just to help people realize dialogues might lead into somewhere. Thats the whole problem. The indicators appear from the beginning, and unrelated to anything, safe from the idea that it will help. Reading might also help there

And this is where the role-playing is gone. 'Tis like saying "Worry not, adventurer, click on that icon and you'll say the right thing!". No. Fun. At. All.

I don't like to call fellow gamers morons, but truth be told, these types of elements in games are what makes them morons. The indicators are most certainly not the end of RPGs as we know them, but the indicators coupled with all other simplifying gameplay elements sure are. And its the whole picture that turns them into morons.

And yet again, we might discuss the preference matter. But the fact is, it will not help the game in any way. If people get used to looking at an icon and clicking on it, because its symbol/colour will lead to a conversational result, imagine what future games with that simplification will do, in terms of dialogues. No one will even bother reading, and will begin to press emoticons left and right.

You're right when you say its pointless stating something will (or will not) suck considering none of us have played the game yet. But i honestly believe that... "featurette" will not be received very well. I'm not generalising and stating everyone will be an insta-moron and will automatically follow the icons instead of dialogue structure - but given there are people that consider Diablo 2 to be an "excellent RPG", and its quite simplified, imagine what markers/indicators of dialogue outcomes will do.

An example. Imagine Final Fantasy 8. Imagine the Triple Triad card game. Imagine that, instead of having to press a secondary conversational dialogue-engaging button to try and ask people if they want to play, that TT players would have arrows over their heads :shock: Yes, quite the :shock: It would help to know who could play, but would that be a good thing in itself?

Another example. Imagine any other PC RPG. Imagine that when you pressed the TAB button, the name of the NPC close-by would appear overhead. Now imagine an icon reflecting their faction would also appear. Coupled with an icon if the NPC was also able to barter. Now imagine another icon if the NPC could be talked to. Now imagine if there would also be an icon if the NPC was killable. Now imagine if there was also an icon indicating a challenge rating.

You'd have what - an NPC with about loads of icons over its head indicating what it could do/what could be done with him. Does it help the game in any way?

Another example, imagine that you'd get an overhead icon on top of NPCs that might help you remember who you are in Torment. The story-telling would be ruined.

Theres' icons, and then there's icons. I'll use NWN for my example again *feels Saint Proverbius' anger ready to rain over self*

When you click on an NPC with your right mouse button, you get a radial menu indicating, by icons, the actions possible to operate in it. You can, more than likely, Pick-Pocket, Attack, Talk, Barter (only on some), use a Skill/Feat, etc.. Same as with objects, like a trapped chest, you get options, by icons, like Disarm, Unlock, Bash, etc.. In that same manner, there are also things you can only do with yourself (no, not that, you pervert :shock: ). For instance if you right click on your PC you'll get the chanve to check your Inventory, or to activate a combat Feat, like Power Attack.

Now imagine you're playing NWN you're talking to an NPC, and in the dialogue, you have reduced icons pointing to where the lines in dialogue will lead. After each dialogue line, an icon. The game itself is already icon intensive because of the radial-menu, now imagine if it also had icons pointing to what would happen if you said X, Y or Z. It'd be heavilly icon-assocation based, and little thought would be needed to function with it.

You see, one thing is to have icons which are logical in the game, and efficient when it comes to the understanding of gameplay, and ease of use of the interface. The other is having icons simplifying your personal input by simplifying the gameplay itself, the ease of use of the gameplay is the only thing promoted in it. There's a great difference, and that difference is what ruins the experience.

Of course, that won't stop me from playing the game in no way. 8)

[Note: Edited because i had some slight typos and one not well-developed sentence]

 

[Skorpios]

DarkUnderlord's example was well within the lines, yours was pure fantasy. DU made a very valid point that illustrates the problem. There could be a quest indicator next to a line that you normally wouldn't say.

I've said my piece but this struck me as being particularly unfair so I'm just asking whether i'm being too sensitive.

DarkUnderlord is yet to show me a screenshot that shows a quest icon next to a sword icon or any other icon. Yes it COULD exist, but do we have any proof to say it does? COULDN'T my hypothetical dialogues (or their equivalent) exist also? So why is his hypothetical situation valid and yet mine isn't? They are based on the same evidence, mine were just a little more flowery (I was aiming to entertain as well you know guys, writing those dialogues was fun!)

There could be a quest icon next to a option that you woulnd't normally choose but how does that make YOU choose it? You say that roleplaying is more than just chasing quests, so why do quest icons have such a hold on you and DarkUnderlord? Do you automatically accept ALL quests from NPCs in other RPGs? Or do you choose depending on the role you are playing and the situation your character is in? (Example: Accepting an evil quest from an EVIL(TM) NPC when you have been playing a basically good character all through the game.)

Why would you do any differently in Lionheart just because the quests are flagged? Don't you still have the ability to judge whether a quest is something YOUR character would or wouldn't do by reading the accompanying text?

Bear with me for one more 'fantastical' example.

(You have been told of a marvellous weapon called 'The Sword of Truth' and have finally tracked down its maker.)

NPC: If you want the 'Sword of Truth' I offer you two choices:

Either kill the little girl who lives next door.
Or marry my sister.

Player:
1) The girl dies tonight!
2) Okay, but only if she can cook.
3) Stuff this for a joke! Eat cold steel!
4) Who needs your stupid sword, the guy down the street is having a sale on morningstars! See ya!

OK, notice I've stopped the flight of fantasy now - I'm not going any further into the conversation. We have here a situation at least as plausible as DarkUnderlord's I think.

Now say you are roleplaying a puritanical, scrupulously honest and honourable Templar Knight - will you betray all of your beliefs for the sword or not? What would you do Vault Dweller? What about you DarkUnderlord? If you are roleplaying honestly then your choice would be to walk away - correct? None of the options are acceptable to your knight as you are roleplaying him. So he will go off in search of some other weapon.

Now let's rewind and add those pesky icons!

NPC: If you want the 'Sword of Truth' I offer you two challenges.

Kill the little girl who lives next door.
Marry my sister.

Player:
[Quest] The girl dies tonight!
[Quest] Okay, but only if she can cook.
[Quest][Sword] Stuff this for a joke! Eat cold steel!
[Exit] Who needs your stupid sword, the guy down the street is having a sale on morningstars! See ya!

Are you telling me that the mere presence of those icons would actually make you go against roleplaying your character? That you would make a choice you NORMALLY wouldn't? (Let's ignore the fact that following the logic of you and DarkUnderlord, the player's brain has just exploded because he can't click all three quest icons at once!) Do the icons have THAT MUCH AUTHORITY that you will click on them just because they are there, or will you roleplay your character honestly? That's all I'm asking.

If your answer is yes, then aren't you conceding that roleplaying is possible, even in an environment with icons?

Now you can point out that we are yet to see a screen with multiple quest icons on it, but see my point about DU's post. Also an NPC with multiple quests available is quite common in some CRPGs, and if we accept that Quest icons always spoil quests then multiple quest icons seem logical. They COULD exist.

Maybe I am just fooling myself, maybe my belief that I actually have a point is just a fantasy...but what I'm saying doesn't seem that hard to understand, even if you don't necessarily agree with it. Is this example really so outrageous or so different from DU's hypothetical? Does anyone else see my point here?

Why is a totally hypothetical situation that explains HIS point OK, but an equally hypothetical situation that explains MY point stupid? Just tell me that. As I said in my previous (final :wink: post). We are arguing in ignorance here in most cases so either NOONE makes stuff up or we all do.

How can I possibly even continue an argument where the other side is allowed to make stuff up and I am told to 'stick to the quotes and screenshots'? So I'm not going to bother any more.

See ya round!

 

[Ausir]

The icons do not show the outcome of the dialogue.
The quest icon shows next to the lines refering to the quests you have already accepted or to the lines where you accept a quest. It's not something like "click here to get a quest".
Also, a combat icon indicates only aggressive tone. Some NPCs might react non-violently to that (and they do). It does not mark all the lines resulting in combat.

 

[Vault Dweller]

So why is his hypothetical situation valid and yet mine isn't?

His situation was as hypothetical as yours, but his point was not. In case you missed it, his point was about a response marked as quest that you would not ask otherwise. It could be as dramatic and unpredictable as the one DU described, or it could take a simplier form, but the point remains. You suggested that by asking such a question and accepting the quest subsequently, you may ruin other quests and get in troubles. I think that your scenario is very far-fetched. So far we have every reason to think that some lines marked as quests would not be the one you choose to ask. The nature of the icons imply that. Nothing implies that there are might be quests cancelling each other out in one NPCs dialogue tree.

You say that roleplaying is more than just chasing quests, so why do quest icons have such a hold on you and DarkUnderlord? Do you automatically accept ALL quests from NPCs in other RPGs? Or do you choose depending on the role you are playing and the situation your character is in?

Unless I'm mistaken, at least 80% of the quests would be neutral, and thus avaialble to all characters, and these are the quests I referred to as being spoiled.

Now say you are roleplaying a puritanical, scrupulously honest and honourable Templar Knight - will you betray all of your beliefs for the sword or not? What would you do Vault Dweller?

I will remind myself that I did not spend years in Crusades, fighting for every thing holy and gleefully destroying everything unholy without clear definition of 'unholy', just "the gut feeling' :wink:, so that some scum, obviously unholy, try to put me through such a test. So I will kill the unholy bastard, take the sword in the name of god, whatever money he had, buy some wine blessed by the local church, and go check his sister out

Player:
[Quest] The girl dies tonight!
[Quest] Okay, but only if she can cook.
[Quest][Sword] Stuff this for a joke! Eat cold steel!
[Exit] Who needs your stupid sword, the guy down the street is having a sale on morningstars!

Look, this is a bad example, as these are the solutions of one quest, at this point nobody cares about the icons as the outcomes are clear without them. Here is a better example, you talk to the store owner:
1. Show me the goodies - understandable
2. Do you have anything uber special? - understandable
3. You look kinda sad. Is anything wrong? - obviously a quest for a caring character
4. Say hello to your sister
4.1 Hmm, since you mentioned it, she's still very upset about the death of her husband who didn't come back from the last Crusade. Tell you what, why don't you try to talk to her, cheer her up a bit if you can, and I'll tell you where you can get a very special blade that belonged to her husband.
"Say hello.." is a short response some people might not ask because they've been chatting with the guy for awhile now, and they are anxious to do the first more obvious quest, but if it's marked as quest, there is no way anybody would miss it.

Why is a totally hypothetical situation that explains HIS point OK, but an equally hypothetical situation that explains MY point stupid? Just tell me that.

I answered that, but I wanted to mention that I never called your points stupid.

 

[Ausir]

Lines like "say hello" won't be marked as quests. Only the ones referring to quests you have already accepted (like "could you tell me about Nostradamus" when you already got a quest to find Nostradamus) or the lines in which you accept a quest "yes, i will do it".

 

[Vault Dweller]

Lines like "say hello" won't be marked as quests. Only the ones referring to quests you have already accepted or the lines in which you accept a quest "yes, i will do it".

Thanks, Ausir, that changes a lot then.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

Aye, thanks for the correction Ausir.

 

[Skorpios]

First off, a small apology to be made. Earlier I misread DarkUnderlord's post about the Quest icon next to the 'abnormal' dialogue choice and I thought he had written the quest icon was alongside the combat icon rather than instead of the combat icon. That's why I spent several paragraphs arguing that his example was just as unlikely as mine and waffling on about multiple quest icons. I was wrong, so sorry about that DU. Just ignore my whinging about being treated differently - as I'm sure most of you already have Oops, too late! Thanks Vault Dweller for pointing out (again) how dumb I am, I will try harder I promise (and that is NOT sarcasm!)

My overall response to that post is still the same though, I still think it boils down to the writing rather than the icons.

Having a quest option that goes something like: "Die evil witch!" seems a little simplistic to me. It isn't very conducive to roleplay (and remember this IS DU's idea not an actual quest option that we know of in Lionheart) because it is so narrow there is no room for interpretation by the player. It is something only a particular kind of character would say, so if it doesn't suit YOUR character you're stuck.

Contrast this to the screenshot quest option: "Perhaps you can help me. I seek the seer known as Nostradamus." Much more open - this conversation could go ANYWHERE from there depending on her response to the question - and we have no idea what that might be - our spirit has already warned us she is a 'witch of lies' it seems. Does this sound like a boring, totally predictable conversation to you? It doesn't to me, I'm itching to explore it!

The question itself (even though it is flagged as a quest) doesn't give you too many clues what her response will be. The question is polite - will she reply in kind or does she have a grudge against you she is about to reveal? Who knows? You have to click on the option to find out and isn't that basically the experience of exploring a dialogue to find out what happens next that you all crave? You can kind of predict the outcome (you get some kind of quest information presumably) but can you predict the CONSEQUENCES of your choice? What crazy quest will she send you off on? Will her information cost you blood, gold, tears or all three? Can't you see that a well written plot will always be rewarding wihether there are icons there or not?

So again we come back to my point that it is the writing that still influences the dialogue much more than the icons. If I saw DU's example in the game I would be disappointed, not because of the icon, but just because it seems a silly way to start (or continue) a quest. WHY is your character suddenly so gung-ho about this particular quest? At least there should ALSO be a more 'peaceful' option also marked as a quest, so that players have a choice. That way you are free to roleplay however you want. Could it be your artificially constructed example DU that limits the roleplaying, not the icons?

You dislike the idea of being FORCED to make decisions you wouldn't normally make and I now understand your point properly. But if the dialogue is written properly then you shouldn't be fored to do anything - the dialogue should offer as many opportunities as possible for all kinds of characters. Those possiblities aren't controlled by the icons but the written options beside them!!

How did you know you were being forced into an abnormal action DarkUnderlord? Because you read the dialogue and "Die witch die" didn't match with what you wanted to do! It was the style of dialogue that limited you not the icon beside it.

So let's say I'm after quests. I talk to her and lo and behold, there's a quest icon next to that line. A line that normally, I wouldn't say for fear of what might happen. I can now say that line knowing full well that I'll get a quest. It takes the fun out of discovering these things for yourself. Instead of finding out quests from exploration and asking questions in dialogue, I know what to ask and know when someone has a quest and when someone doesn't. More to the point, I know exactly what to say to get the quest.

OK, let's say you're after quests - is that some new deifinition of roleplaying I'm not up to date with? As I pointed out before sure there could be a quest icon but there's no guarantee WHICH quest it is, right? There's no certainty that threatening her will advance the Nostradamus quest, in fact it might cut that quest off, so you need to find an alternative path to find him. No the quest indicated by the icon might be the quest you have to go on to get rid of the curse the Witch puts on you after you smart mouth her! I don't see any guarantee of safety vouched by the quest icons. Sure, you know what to say to get a quest, but is it necessarily a quest you WANT? Only by clicking on it will you find out and maybe, just maybe you'll be surprised!

Finally, I actually read one of Cabal's posts PROPERLY and found a quote on quests that is very interesting:

Some quests can be found early on in conversations, so if you don't like reading, they're fairly easy to find. But, others are nested in the conversations and some depend on other conditions before appearing. We hope there's a good mix of this for all types of gamers, but hopefully the reading in Lionheart won't turn you off

Find the original post here

Ironically, this is the same thread that DU got his quotes from! :shock:

Suddenly quest icons don't sound quite so spoilerish. Thoughtful players who enjoy exploring conversations will still be rewarded in Lionheart! Players who explore the game with different characters will discover new quests and experiences! Rejoice!

I'm sure that doesn't convince everyone but it does have to be taken as a positive sign that even if conversations aren't up to Troika's standards they do have some depth and replayability.

A quick edit to also thank Ausir for his confirmation that quests aren't totally spoiled.

 

[Skorpios]

Out of curiosity, why do you find the term moron in regard to to the indicators and people who would use them to bypass dialogues so offensive?

Well, you know what they say about curiosity, but here goes - this aside will be a welcome respite from me putting my foot in my mouth yet again...I hope.

I guess part of it just my general attitude which I've outlined before that I believe negative terms like that are unnecessary and often offensive.

OK, your latest definition of a moron seems to be 'someone who uses indicators to bypass dialogues'. Fair enough that is your opinion - I can't say I agree with it, but I'll accept it as your opinion nonetheless.

On the other hand, if I (or anyone else) pays $50 for a game, then I feel they are entitled to play with it in any way they see fit, and I fail to see how anyone exercising this right is automatically a moron.

We are talking about a form of entertainment here - just one of many. CRPGs are one form, so is music, literature, gardening, and surfing for example.

Let's say I REALLY enjoy surfing but I'm crap at it. Does it matter? I'm having fun and I'm hurting no one. In that situation am I automatically a moron? Perhaps to an elite surfer but why should his opinion label me in any way? And there would be plenty of people in that situation - they are not elite in a particular field but they enjoy it anyway. Is it fair to call someone a moron just because the enjoy doing something differently to you? Even if that means they are not doing it right?

OK, let's move back to CRPGs. I buy a CRPG with a rich, deep dialogue interface, but I really enjoy the combat system, so I never follow the quests or talk to anyone, I just head straight into the wilderness and beat stuff up for several hours at a time. A great stress reliever and I gain much enjoyment from it. Now I'm sure an experienced roleplayer like you is throwing up your hands at the waste of it all. But who am I hurting really? I'm having fun, the game developer got his share of the profits.

But I'm avoiding the dialogue system, I'm not playing the game as a CRPG, but more as a beat-em-up or shooter. So? Is it fair that I should be called a moron just because my entertainment is different from what you see as right and proper?

I don't think so, and I do find it offensive when you start labelling people morons simply because they might play a game differently than you do or might find a feature useful that you do not.

On a related note, the other point that disturbs me is that you are giving a game like Lionheart a fairly hard time burdening it with a feature called 'moron indicators' even before you've played it. Is that fair to use such negative terms about a game you've never even played? What is someone supposed to think about a game that has 'moron indicators'?? Doesn't sound all that attractive and it certainly doesn't encourage further inquiries into the game - who wants to be caught looking at a game for morons?.

Yet you readily admit that Lionheart has many good features - but you don't call them "Super Dialogues" or "Wonder graphics". So why are the negatives exaggerated and the positives not? What term is mostly going to stick in the minds of lurkers skimming through these threads? I've already seen other people using the term: "Lionheart's moron indicators" in other threads on this forum.

Is that really treating Lionheart and Reflexive fairly? How many people out there now associate Lionheart with moronic gameplay because of the repeated use of that term?

If you REALLY believe the icons are moron indicators then you must also believe that either Reflexive are morons for coming up with the concept, Reflexive consider the majority of the audience for their game are morons, or both. Do you actually believe that? Can you look at all the good features in Lionheart, and the responsiveness of Reflexive to Saint Proverbious and other fans and then agree that they are morons or think their fans are? Truly?

Then why throw hurtful terms like moron about in the first place when all they can really do is insult people like the Reflexive team or even hurt the sales of the game they've worked so hard to create?

THAT is what I find so offensive.

Probably more than you wanted to hear but there it is.

 

[Vault Dweller]

I feel they are entitled to play with it in any way they see fit, and I fail to see how anyone exercising this right is automatically a moron.

I would not say 'automatically', but depending on what they do with it. I see a lack of desire to read dialogue lines (assuming they are well written of course) as a sign of deficient intelligence unable to appreciate a story.

Let's say I REALLY enjoy surfing but I'm crap at it.

I don't think it's the same, being not good enough at something and deliberatly passing on a good thing just because you are mentally lazy to produce a small effort. For example, I enjoy playing Fallout as a "traveller" without any uber killer skills trying to see the world from a different angle talking my way out of trouble. I would never call a person who play Fallout only as a fighting man a moron, but I would if a person would want to bypass all the dialogues and play it killing stuff mindlessly. I would say that this person is too stupid to appreciate the beauty of the game. That's my opinion and response to your analogy.

Is it fair to call someone a moron just because the enjoy doing something differently to you? Even if that means they are not doing it right?

You work in a library, right? I would assume that you have some respect for books. Here is a situation, a guy gets a good interesting book, looks at the pictures and returns the book saying that reading is boring, but the pictures were alright. Let's say you are too busy too argue with him and unable to try to convince the guy to give reading a try, and let's say that for all intents and purposes, the guy is literate and mentally healthy. What would be your opinion of him?

OK, let's move back to CRPGs. I buy a CRPG with a rich, deep dialogue interface, but I really enjoy the combat system, so I never follow the quests or talk to anyone, I just head straight into the wilderness and beat stuff up for several hours at a time. A great stress reliever and I gain much enjoyment from it.

Hmm, you are getting better at making analogies, but I would say that if you are so stressed and need a relief, there are many games that revolve around pure combat and specialize in making combat as much fun as possible like Quake and Diablo. While it's hard to call such a guy stupid, getting pure combat games would be a smarter choice. Returning to my book analogy, It's like buying a good book for pictures, it's stupid, if you like comics, buy comics.

Is that fair to use such negative terms about a game you've never even played? What is someone supposed to think about a game that has 'moron indicators'??

While I see your point, don't you think that Reflexive should have thought of that before they introduced the icons? Let's go back a bit, you agreed that a person who is mentally able to play the game would be able to figure out where each line leads to. That means that the icons have no useful function (we are talking about quest/combat/exit icons), and unnecessary. So we have something that nobody benefits from, but many people are upset about, that sounds like a bad decision to me, and don't hold me responsible for somebody else's fu...mistake

Yet you readily admit that Lionheart has many good features - but you don't call them "Super Dialogues" or "Wonder graphics". So why are the negatives exaggerated and the positives not?

Fair enough, I will use the term 'icons" from now on.

If you REALLY believe the icons are moron indicators then you must also believe that either Reflexive are morons for coming up with the concept, Reflexive consider the majority of the audience for their game are morons, or both. Do you actually believe that?

No, of course not, but there are many parties that have influence on a game. Remember Fallout 2 starting dungeon? Wasn't that ridiculous? Yet I'm sure that somebody thought that it's a really great idea to give new players a tutorial. I feel that the icons belong in the same category.

 

[Voss]

And with the update on the indicators (over at the lionheart boards) and Ausir's posts hereI'm really confused.

Sometimes they show up, sometimes they don't, and Cabals early quote on them apparently isn't entirely accurate.

So, what exactly is the point of them? I get the skill ones, and can see that they'd be informative. But the quest has me boggled, partly because of the earlier quotes and now the corrections.
Though rereading the quotes it now seems to be 'you will get a quest OR find out more about a current one' if you click this dialogue choice. Which to me still comes across as 'click here to get a quest' with a possiblity of getting your existing quest log updated instead.

Though apparently some quests are hidden and nested.

So, are they useful, even to the people that would use them? Because from the example we've got, you'd have to be in a serious hurry or seriously oblivious not to realize those dialogue choices are heading in those directions anyway.
So, are they even useful for the people who don't read?

 

[Vault Dweller]

So, are they even useful for the people who don't read?

Not really