Game News Project Eternity Kickstarter Update #62: Production Milestone Report - Areas, Characters, Features

[Infinitron]

The one that matters most for CRPGs and what we were talking about initially: player agency. What would be good in other media really doesn't matter for shit if you're just led along by the wrist through the story and asked for your opinion now and then.

Well, when I want to talk about player agency, I say "reactivity" or "choices and consequences", not "good dialogue".

And I thought we were talking about why crawlkill liked the Infinity Engine games, most of which were not known for their great degree of player agency.

 

[Hormalakh]

One way would be to ask your party members to talk in your stead. You could ask a certain party member to threaten/persuade or whatever in your stead. It could play out where you don't know exactly what they're going to say (a la obsidian's a other game AP) but you have an idea.

So many ways to bring in the other players into the convo, but nooooo they have to gimp it. Kind of getting tired of it.

Ie, player-initiated scripted interjections, like in PS:T. What's the difference? Who says PE won't have these?

?

No

Not interjections. I'm talking about letting the skilled party member make the skill roll but throwing caution to the wind in how it's exactly woded (and whether it would be successful as a skill check). That is different than a party member interjecting in a predefined portion of the game. Very different.

The difference is player agency.

 

[Infinitron]

 

[crawlkill]

And I thought we were talking about why crawlkill liked the Infinity Engine games, most of which were not known for their great degree of player agency.

when I was a kid I thought they had agency, but replaying them now I see them as way more linear than I'd remembered. it's just funny that PE should model its look after IWD, which was the agency-lessest of em all. or maybe it doesn't look like IWD at all and I'm seeing things that aren't there? that happens.

 

[crawlkill]

RPGs aren't movies or books.

but they are -things that exist.- entertainment isn't actually excused and criticized based on format, as much as people like to talk about it that way. "this is a comic book" or "this is a video game" should't drop your standards for a product. genre gives you categories, not "oh that means it doesn't have to be Xgoodthing"ness.

kind of forgotten what this conversation was about now

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

The one that matters most for CRPGs and what we were talking about initially: player agency. What would be good in other media really doesn't matter for shit if you're just led along by the wrist through the story and asked for your opinion now and then.

Well, when I want to talk about player agency, I say "reactivity" or "choices and consequences", not "good dialogue".

But you can't pretend that what makes for good dialogue in a crpg is just good film dialogue multiplied by x for the number of choices available. Good film/literary dialogue is tied up with the character: it's supposed to be believable that that character would speak those lines. With a crpg it's the opposite: what kind of character is speaking the lines is supposed to be up in the air as much as possible (unless you're working with psychological stats a la Gurps, but I don't think there's any crpg's with those). So good dialogue in crpg's can't be separated from player agency.

 

[Infinitron]

The one that matters most for CRPGs and what we were talking about initially: player agency. What would be good in other media really doesn't matter for shit if you're just led along by the wrist through the story and asked for your opinion now and then.

Well, when I want to talk about player agency, I say "reactivity" or "choices and consequences", not "good dialogue".

But you can't pretend that what makes for good dialogue in a crpg is just good film dialogue multiplied by x for the number of choices available. Good film/literary dialogue is tied up with the character: it's supposed to be believable that that character would speak those lines. With a crpg it's the opposite: what kind of character is speaking the lines is supposed to be up in the air as much as possible (unless you're working with psychological stats a la Gurps, but I don't think there's any crpg's with those). So good dialogue in crpg's can't be separated from player agency.

*shrug* I don't agree. Why are we having this discussion again? Can't I agree that C&C is a good thing(tm) without tying it up with notions of "dialogue quality"?

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

No, you can't.

 

[Athelas]

I would prefer a combination of the two - companions sometimes spontaneously react and sometimes you can ask them to contribute their unique skills/knowledge. Maybe someone should ask them about it.

 

[Rake]

The one that matters most for CRPGs and what we were talking about initially: player agency. What would be good in other media really doesn't matter for shit if you're just led along by the wrist through the story and asked for your opinion now and then.

Well, when I want to talk about player agency, I say "reactivity" or "choices and consequences", not "good dialogue".

But you can't pretend that what makes for good dialogue in a crpg is just good film dialogue multiplied by x for the number of choices available. Good film/literary dialogue is tied up with the character: it's supposed to be believable that that character would speak those lines. With a crpg it's the opposite: what kind of character is speaking the lines is supposed to be up in the air as much as possible (unless you're working with psychological stats a la Gurps, but I don't think there's any crpg's with those). So good dialogue in crpg's can't be separated from player agency.

What about games like PS:T, KOTOR2, WITCHER? Games where the dialogue is tied up with the character, and must be belevable and personalized? Games that the whole point is the inward journey the character undertakes?
The dialogue in such games have diffirent goals than the dialogue in a game like Fallout/Skyrim, and diffirent yet than a game like SoZ or IWD, so they can't have the same criteria.

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

What about games like PS:T, KOTOR2, WITCHER? Games where the dialogue is tied up with the character, and must be belevable and personalized? Games that the whole point is the inward journey the character undertakes?
The dialogue in such games have diffirent goals than the dialogue in a game like Fallout/Skyrim, and diffirent yet than a game like SoZ or IWD, so they can't have the same criteria.

I've only played the first two, but I have the feeling I've played different games than you have. What were the characteristics of the Nameless One, or of the Exile according to you? What were their personalities?

 

[Duraframe300]

I'm not getting the discussion.

Would Kreia have somehow be better if she didn't have scripted interjections and I had to ask everytime?

*Hey Kreia, please berate me or say something now*

....

 

[Rake]

What about games like PS:T, KOTOR2, WITCHER? Games where the dialogue is tied up with the character, and must be belevable and personalized? Games that the whole point is the inward journey the character undertakes?
The dialogue in such games have diffirent goals than the dialogue in a game like Fallout/Skyrim, and diffirent yet than a game like SoZ or IWD, so they can't have the same criteria.

I've only played the first two, but I have the feeling I've played different games than you have. What were the characteristics of the Nameless One, or of the Exile according to you? What were their personalities?

When people praise PS:T or KOTOR2 for it's writing and dialogue, most of them do it for it's "literaly quality", and not for the player agency it offers. You can have well writen dialogue without C&C. As infinitron said, that goes under the reactivity umbrela.
As for personality, it's up to the player, but they both had predefined history that restricted the player choices up to a point.
My point is that when you have the narrative as your main focus of a game, writing quality is just as importand as C&C in dialogue, and a character that is a completey blank slate with dialogue that is completely neutral and impersonal so it doesn't clash with the players consept won't cut it.
C&C in dialogue is a different matter, and the more you have the better. But a badly writen game with unparalleled C&C is still a badly writen game

 

[Jim the Dinosaur]

When people praise PS:T or KOTOR2 for it's writing and dialogue, most of them do it for it's "literaly quality", and not for the player agency it offers. You can have well writen dialogue without C&C. As infinitron said, that goes under the reactivity umbrela.

Nobody's disputing that a game with little reactivity can benefit from literary quality writing, just that once you have reactivity in place, the standards for what counts as good dialogue shift.

As for personality, it's up to the player, but they both had predefined history that restricted the player choices up to a point.

Well-defined history doesn't translate to well-defined personality; Torment was entirely built on that premise (or was it, lol). And how did it restrict the player's choices exactly outside of the central plot necessities that every crpg has? PS:T Might have been light on big flashy C&C but dialogue was designed in a more open ended way than most crpgs IIRC.

My point is that when you have the narrative as your main focus of a game, writing quality is just as importand as C&C in dialogue, and a character that is a completey blank slate with dialogue that is completely neutral and impersonal so it doesn't clash with the players consept won't cut it.
C&C in dialogue is a different matter, and the more you have the better. But a bad writen game with unparalleled C&C is still a badly writen game

But that's the point: if you have a lot of reactivity you have to have the skill to write dialogue that doesn't pigeonhole the player into having to say something he "didn't want to say". That almost necessarily leads to "bad writing" in a literary sense, but it's good crpg dialogue all the same.

 

[tuluse]

unhhh can we stop using Icewind Dale as our baseline

when I was a kid I thought they had agency, but replaying them now I see them as way more linear than I'd remembered. it's just funny that PE should model its look after IWD, which was the agency-lessest of em all. or maybe it doesn't look like IWD at all and I'm seeing things that aren't there? that happens.

Where did this come from? Everyone was talking about SoZ and suddenly you interject with the first quote like it's fact. How is PE using IWD as it's baseline?

 

[Hormalakh]

Good dialogue isn't based on the genre. You can have good dialogue in whatever genre you pick, the standards are equal. It's how that dialogue is presented that is different. You can have excellent writing with smart and thoughtful options or you can have smack my head dopey responses written by hacks. Having a choic doesn't mean the quality should suffer.

As for asking party members to speak in your stead, this goes more back to having a game mechanic that is both fun and fulfilling to play. Imagine if in ps:t, you could be a moron with low wisdom, but still have other party members bring something into the dialogue options because of their talents. Of course, te options would be worded in their own personality, but it would allow you to role play another character type without needing to have high intelligence scores. Allowing other party members to speak for you provides with several benefits: it allows you to feel that party members can be useful outside of combat, the developers have more of a chance to flesh out their characters at the player's pace, and it also makes speech-type challenges less of a "well you definitely need this attribute on your main character or else you can't play them the way you want."

It's just a better way of doing things. Nobody argues that party members shouldn't be allowed to hae their combat managed, why is it ok for them to be worthless in dialogue?

 

[Hormalakh]

The other thing about having party members speak in your stead is that it can provide an opprtunity for the designers to actually write dialogue that the player might not necessarily know how it's exactly worded but that the player can't complain about. For example, a lot of people griped that in alpha protocol, if you chose an option in dialogue, sometimes the main char would come off more of an asshole or whatever than the player intended. If other party members are asked to speak in the main character's stead, that is a given and it brings those party members more to life than they otherwise would and players would realize that it's risky to get someone else to speak in your stead. It would actually be ... .gasp ... Fun


I don't think interjections are bad. But asking Viconia to talk to the duergar instead of her just jumping in gives my player, the party leader, the opportunity to actually make a choice about that. There are plenty of ways to make this a worthwhile addition in dialogue.

 

[Roguey]

Hormalakh might I recommend Dragon Age II.

 

[Hormalakh]

Roguey fuckin gonna roguey....i dunno how d2 dialogue works exactly, but from looking it up online, that isnt what i was talking about at all. Stop trying to downplay the conversation by associating it with shit games.

 

[Roguey]

Roguey fuckin gonna roguey....i dunno how d2 dialogue works exactly, but from looking it up online, that isnt what i was talking about at all. Stop trying to downplay the conversation by associating it with shit games.

In DAII, in some conversations you can call on your companions to talk for you, making it what you're talking about.

 

[crawlkill]

Where did this come from? Everyone was talking about SoZ and suddenly you interject with the first quote like it's fact. How is PE using IWD as it's baseline?

I was free associating a little and possibly intoxicated, just the style of the dialogue box reminded me of IWD2's. possibly wrongly.