Interview MCA's World of Choices & Consequenses

[sea]

2) Player skill versus combat skill metagaming debate. Continuing from above point of catering more to consequence of noncombat skill levels, a narrowing tier of allowable actions has to be inserted inbetween the player's and character's knowledge and perceptions. i.e. through metagaming you know the wall has a depression there with very old human blood. The character will need high perception and medical skill to get 100% success. Without perception he would not get the medical skill check in the first place. Or the player could make the conscious decision to not bother with analysis as it is a red herring and there is an urgent time limit.

Ultimately a combat engine can be universally tailored to numbers interacting with and doing things to each other and results in very satisfying and intimate consequences, something like speech has to be recognised as a skill that's used as much as small guns, then tailored to characters and situations interacting with each other and supported with a noncombat auto cross-interaction system scripted for such things allowing for prettying up with dialog or character thoughts, otherwise manual design is required and therefore economics dictates you get very little of it or that you end up synergizing skills with combat situations.

It's worth pointing out that the granularity of choices and consequences in game mechanics isn't inherently held back by the limits of content creation. While it's true that it's hard to script multiple responses for different outcomes, I think a lot of it just has to do with developers a) putting most of their resources into combat systems and b) not enough games have non-combat skills as a legitimate path through them; rather they serve as flavour, and are held as secondary not even due to lack of resources, but in terms of design priority.

Consider a game like Morrowind: the number of variables influencing the reactions of NPCs is actually quite high (faction reputation, general reputation, race, gender (I think), bribery, persuasion success/failure, quest completion for that NPC), but it's largely held back by a crude implementation and a very large game-world which necessitates skimping on unique NPC dialogue, not because the system itself is broken or lacking in possibility. Even in the core game there are situations where you will get varying response based upon how much the NPC likes you (and sometimes you want them to get angry, so they'll attack you of their own volition), which has an impact in some quests (character might give you information A but not B if you have 60 reputation vs. 85), and in more broad systems (lower store prices based on higher reputation). While for the most part reputation is not too useful and kind of a side-effect of other game systems, and perhaps over-simplified (just one number isn't really nuanced enough), if refined and honed it could provide for some really cool options in interacting with NPCs, without even necessarily having to write unique dialogue for each and every character (you could use a Mad Libs system that exchanges nouns, adjectives and verbs for the less important NPCs with generic dialogue, for instance). Of course, implementing this in a game with voice acting would prove a challenge, but it could still work on a smaller scale.

The real question, of course, isn't whether it's doable, because I think it's just as easy to create compelling combat mechanics as it is to create compelling social mechanics. Literal weapons can just as easily become figurative ones for gaining influence (gifts, alcohol, bribes) and combat-oriented quests to gain favour can just as readily be replaced by peaceful negotiations. Rather, what it really comes down to is, is it worth spending a ton of time creating complex social interaction for a game, when that system would only comprise a small portion of the game and would be enjoyed by only a small portion of players? Games are already huge and complex, and just getting one aspect like combat is already difficult enough as it is... and combat is by far the easiest form of character interaction to create, yet we have yet to truly master it either. Adding more and more layers is frankly quite beyond the scope and budget of most projects, aside from smaller indie titles (which, if they have that same depth, tend to focus on social interaction only, making them no different than combat-heavy games save for aesthetics and story).

Perhaps even more importantly, I do have to wonder if the players who play non-combat roles are even interested in dealing with complex mechanics in the first place. In almost every RPG featuring diplomacy, for the most part it boils down to either pumping the speech skills and picking the right options, or trial and error as you engage in a verbal sparring match (something Alpha Protocol tried and Deus Ex might be expanding upon), both of which have their faults, and the latter which largely hinges on the quality of the writing (situations where you must pick the right option, five times in a row, to get a positive outcome, are never fun). In a lot of ways, the speech option is the easy option, but somehow I think that might even be a good thing in the end. Not everyone wants a challenge, and I'm inclined to believe that the people who go for non-combat approaches are the types more interested in exploring the world, characters and lore anyway.

 

[MetalCraze]

KOTOR 2 says hello

a) It isn't Obsidian's game.
b) Millions of people died from old age since then.

 

[CappenVarra]

HATE IS NOT BLIND FOR I AM HER EYES



Also, as a great fan and serial replayer of the original Kotor, I feel Obsidian can not, in good conscience, be fully credited for the sequel.

 

[Roguey]

No. Because yes it creates a challenge. In context he also refers to FO1s end challenge where you needed to pick the right options to rapefuck the master.

As long as you have the right information I never thought of this as much of a challenge, since it's obvious you should be as non-confrontational as possible whenever arguing with someone big and scary. It's interesting, not challenging.

Naturally, again FO: New Vegas system is differently and doesn't suit itself to it. Which isn't Avellones fault or design decision.

Sure it is. No one held a gun to his head and said "Make a win-button speech option for recruiting Cass" especially when the other three skill checks in that scenario aren't win buttons (pay money [well this would be more punitive if you tried to recruit her early before you're rolling in it], find 12 whiskeys for a drinking contest, kill ants).

Though, he actually STILL did it in the Conversation with the Legate (Also written by Avellone) in the end of the game. There, if you took away the skill numbers you would have to argue correctly with the Legate.

Same deal as with the Master above. And doing it right in one place doesn't excuse doing it wrong in another.

 

[Jasede]

MCA isn't a god, so he too makes mistakes.
He's as close to a god as any human can be, though.

<3 MCA-SAMA <3

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

Oh i so agree with him, he's talking of something that's beyond character's skill, he's talking about pure manipulation of informations.

In a way he's talking about graphic adventures, because "picking up" an information that was lying somewhere and "using it" someplace else that has absolutely no direct link is the core of the puzzle concept.

The best example of his ideas is definitely, definitely, Laura Bow 2.

 

[Crooked Bee]

http://askaboutpuzzles.blogspot.com/

Hey, the name of your blog excited me, but then I clicked on the link and they told me it doesn't exist...

Or is that supposed to be a puzzle?

 

[shihonage]

There is a bit of "now it's more of a player skill than char. skill" going on, but you could also say that combat is player skill because player moves people around, equips them, and chooses their targets.

Even with more complex/interesting dialogue mechanics, the char. would be limited by their INT/speech skills.

Which actually makes me want to go all the way in the opposite direction and eliminate speech/INT as char. attributes, unloading them entirely onto player himself.

Really, speech/INT only get used in dialogue (or so it seems). And nobody likes playing an average/dumb guy, at least, not all the time.

If dialogue choices can be made more meaningful/interesting/complex by other means, these binary checks would actually stand in the way of that.

I'd rather the super-smart-option-where-you-tell-Master-his-plan-is-no-good appear after you collect some evidence to prove it. And, you get to say something about one character after you learned a secret from them. These kind of mechanics are less arbitrary and more "consequent", if you will.

I can be average guy most of the time, but some things I could be "smart" about.

Tying a dialogue option about weapon repair to one's REPAIR skill is more intuitive than tying "some smart get-out-of-jail option" to "general smartness" skills, which is why I'm leaning toward the whole INT/speech removal.

It's just too generic and would interfere with better methods.

Gah, it's hard to write eloquently about this. I need my speech buffed :\

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

http://askaboutpuzzles.blogspot.com/

Hey, the name of your blog excited me, but then I clicked on the link and they told me it doesn't exist...

Or is that supposed to be a puzzle?

oh sorry i didn't post in a while.
done.

it COULD have been a puzzle, tho.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

There is a bit of "now it's more of a player skill than char. skill" going on, but you could also say that combat is player skill because player moves people around, equips them, and chooses their targets.

Even with more complex/interesting dialogue mechanics, the char. would be limited by their INT/speech skills.

Which actually makes me want to go all the way in the opposite direction and eliminate speech/INT as char. attributes, unloading them entirely onto player himself.

Really, speech/INT only get used in dialogue (or so it seems). And nobody likes playing an average/dumb guy, at least, not all the time.

If dialogue choices can be made more meaningful/interesting/complex by other means, these binary checks would actually stand in the way of that.

I'd rather the super-smart-option-where-you-tell-Master-his-plan-is-no-good appear after you collect some evidence to prove it. And, you get to say something about one character after you learned a secret from them. These kind of mechanics are less arbitrary and more "consequent", if you will.

I can be average guy most of the time, but some things I could be "smart" about.

Tying a dialogue option about weapon repair to one's REPAIR skill is more intuitive than tying "some smart get-out-of-jail option" to "general smartness" skills, which is why I'm leaning toward the whole INT/speech removal.

It's just too generic and would interfere with better methods.

Gah, it's hard to write eloquently about this. I need my speech buffed :\

Jesus fucking Christ, first Vogel and now you. Who's next? Vince?

 

[Davaris]

I can be average guy most of the time, but some things I could be "smart" about.

It makes sense when you consider that thread in GD, about order of operations in maths.

Tying a dialogue option about weapon repair to one's REPAIR skill is more intuitive than tying "some smart get-out-of-jail option" to "general smartness" skills, which is why I'm leaning toward the whole INT/speech removal.

There are also people that are stupid about everything. So the right answer is probably a mix of both, which would be difficult to implement without some kind of automation.

 

[Gylfi.Fenriz.Conquests]

It's just too generic and would interfere with better methods.

I agree. If, say, you're trying to escape from a prison and you must talk to a keeper, INT can't solve everything, it would be boring, you'd rather explore and gather "intelligence" that will persuade the keeper to letting you go. Why would anyone still need a generic and passive INT check?

In a way it's what happens in Deus Ex, the difference between using silly hacking and computer forceful methods instead of solving riddles and exploring to gather keys and password.

 

[shihonage]

There are also people that are stupid about everything. So the right answer is probably a mix of both, which would be difficult to implement without some kind of automation.

The tools allow it, but I don't want to have an unclean, unintuitive design. How do you justify that not only you have to "do something" to get the innkeeper to open his mouth (ok that didn't come out right), but that option won't even appear if your INT/speech is low?

I mean, it may work, but intuitively it feels like there's a trap in there in regards to jumbled design and/or too much additional content.

I agree. If, say, you're trying to escape from a prison and you must talk to a keeper, INT can't solve everything, it would be boring, you'd rather explore and gather "intelligence" that will persuade the keeper to letting you go. Why would anyone still need a generic and passive INT check?

In a way it's what happens in Deus Ex, the difference between using silly hacking and computer forceful methods instead of solving riddles and exploring to gather keys and password.

Yes, and it's not just limited to clues. You could have someone open up about a similar subject because you, earlier in the game, have done something similar to what they're describing. THIS is the kind of stuff I'd replace INT/speech checks with...

Jesus fucking Christ, first Vogel and now you. Who's next? Vince?

Except, I'm going in the opposite direction. Programmatically, INT/speech checks are "more streamlined" and less complex than my proposal, which requires more extensive contextual scripting.

INT/speech directly affects the most important part - plot progression and writing. It affects the elements that are not emergent and programmatic (like combat, or picking locks), but the ones most difficult to create, by hand, the ones most involved in dynamic storytelling - the heart of the game.

I feel that the player should have the choice to work to access higher levels of these elements selectively, instead of being locked into the same level throughout the experience.

In the existing scheme, in their first playthrough, any self-respecting gamer will rack up INT, limiting their choices with the other stats. It's almost like a constant. In my twisted view, this means that INT is actually a false char. attribute, one that limits others.

To be honest, I do dislike the idea of taking out INT/speech, because it makes the character sheet "incomplete". But I haven't yet thought of a way to reintegrate them without messing with a "better dialogue system".

The benefit of taking them out would be in elimination of garbage infodump games where you affect something on level 3 of dialogue and then have a new choice on level 2, and the general "find the longest smartiest option and you're golden" bullshit.

There's also the factor that dialogue is most transferable directly from player to character and back. It's the most natural link to the gameworld, and the most fragile.

Unlike the more exact science (like the math involved in combat), writing is subjective. As Fallout 3 shows us, our definition of dumb/smart dialogue doesn't always match the developer's definition.

If the player isn't smart enough to find the clues necessary to advance the conversation to his benefit, then showing them their smart character outsmarting them would also be kind of jarring, would it not?

Who's to decide that this choice requires 8 INT, and that one requires 9? Wouldn't it be more logical to tie those choices to our prior actions in the game?

Bleh. Frankly, I'm split on the issue. That's why I talk a lot. Which isn't helping.

 

[Davaris]

There are also people that are stupid about everything. So the right answer is probably a mix of both, which would be difficult to implement without some kind of automation.

The tools allow it, but I don't want to have an unclean, unintuitive design. How do you justify that not only you have to "do something" to get the innkeeper to open his mouth (ok that didn't come out right), but that option won't even appear if your INT/speech is low?

I mean, it may work, but intuitively it feels like there's a trap in there in regards to jumbled design and/or too much additional content.

I can't justify it under the current system, but what I do know is something wrong with the way things worked in the previous systems. TBH I don't know enough about it right now, to discuss it in depth. However I think part of the answer, is to do things differently from the start.

Building psychological dossiers (triggers that have a better chance of working) and changing the way speech options are offered is one way. My idea for speech options is to present them in more general terms of what you want to achieve and the game tells you in general terms (or more detailed terms if you have that capability) how it all turned out. This way it is possible to create a model for social interaction, much like has been done for combat.

I haven't played Alpha Protocol, but I get the impression this is what they had in mind. However from what I have seen of the screen shots, their system was far more simplistic than I'd like.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

In AP it had to be simplistic because they were trying to achieve tension by giving the player a time limit to choose answers (that limit depending on the situation - calm conversations have a more generous limit than the violent ones), which doesn't go with the "sit down and read for as long as you like" kind of dialogue. Maybe on a future title.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

If you think AP was fast try Fahrenheit dialogs. You pretty much go 'Wait hrrm 2 seconds left fuck it that one'.