KickStarter Thimbleweed Park: A New Ron Gilbert Classic Point & Click Adventure

[buzz]

I was sarcastic.

 

[Kz3r0]

Are dialogue trees a feature that can be asociated with the better classic adventure games developed by LucasArts? Yes.

No.

 

[Kz3r0]

Here we have this old-school veteran who is developing a video game with genre name that fucking tells you that YOU NEED A FUCKING MOUSE suddenly doing an Xbox one port because ... the guys at Microsoft were nice to him?

$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[Cazzeris]

No.

Why not? Monkey Island's dialogues were certainly better than Maniac Mansion's due to a good number of reasons, one of them being the proper character interaction that was allowed by the dialogue trees. Many jokes could be added with this system, such as the silly questions Guybrush formulates when he's hanging over the acid bath in MI2. I even remember Sam & Max Hit the Road having a icon menu for the dialogues that striked me as dumb and non-functional.

If the idea is to make a game that resembles everything that worked and featured nice stuff in the better LucasArts classics, then why do you consider a good idea to choose a different system or (in this case) step backwards directly to Maniac Mansion?

Then again you haven't said that, but the negative feeling you've expressed towards the dialogue trees suggests so.

 

[Darth Slaughter]

The thing about old lucasarts adventures with verbs/voices/point and click is that every iteration of adventure games improved in each game. Indiana jones and the last crusade had dialogue trees, monkey island introduced the "intuitive guessing" in which with a right click you would trigger the most obvious verb in a interactive object, like open and close associate with a door, or look at with a lot of things. Monkey 2 introduced the icon based inventory and later they started adding fully voiced dialogues.

If they want to make a Maniac Mansion style adventure, they should cut the intuitive guessing, voiceovers, inventory should be words, and you should be able to die. I don't know how the dialogue system in thimbleweed will work, but for an investigative game like this, I thought dialogur trees would be mandatory...

 

[Great Deceiver]

I agree with the sentiment that dialogue trees are overrated, as most of my fondest adventuring moments are text adventures and Sierra ones. I'd rather an adventure developer focus on strong puzzles and interaction/area atmosphere.

However, there is one huge exception: the insult swordfighting in Monkey Island. That was fucking brilliant, but I can't think of any other equally creative solutions for dialogue and its integration with puzzles.

 

[DeepOcean]

Dialog trees are very important on RPGs but on adventure games they are more of a choice, played pretty great adventure games that didn't have dialog trees so what this fuss is about?

 

[DeepOcean]

Ahahahahahah. Ron Gilbert lovers was all smug. Showing fucking Tim Schafer how do you do an oldschool adventure game. AHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Well, if this project ends like shit, at least, Ron can claim he blew up 600k on a shitty game instead of 3 million dollars.

 

[Blackthorne]

I like dialogue trees. Sure, making them can be time consuming sometimes, but that's what happens when you MAKE A GAME.

But, you know, whatever - I'm sure this will be enjoyable. If not, I still have some leftover pitchforks and torches in the shed that we can dust off.


Bt

 

[Cazzeris]

Dialog trees are very important on RPGs but on adventure games they are more of a choice, played pretty great adventure games that didn't have dialog trees so what this fuss is about?

The absence of dialogue trees itself is not what is alarming. Hell, if it was so then the rage would have started weeks ago; when Ron Gilbert first suggested that the game wouldn't feature them.

Look, if it's so hard for you to understand; just read buzz's post. He explained the "problem" nicely.

 

[DeepOcean]

Wait a minute people, doesn't this game have five protagonists? Did Ron Gilbert explain how he plan to distribute those protagonists on the scenes? If you can choose the protagonists you can play on a scene, I wouldn't be surprised if things got complicated fast with dialog trees. Maniac Mansion was a game where you could choose three protagonists from a list of seven and play the whole game with them and depending of the combinations, they could have different skills and reactions with each other.

About if the dialog trees are super essencial or not, depends of the use actually. TellTale games have dialog trees and they aren't any more interactive for it. Actually, I'm tired of all those casual adventure games that pretend to provide you with interactivity by giving you the illusion of interactivity through dialog choices that are no more than meaningless options to click to watch a B movie story play out.

 

[gromit]

Quickie Pal is probably a Qwik-E-Mart ripoff,

Ripoff or pop-reference? Which is better and why? DISCUSS!

 

[V_K]

Dialog trees are very important on RPGs

And even that isn't necessary the case. Arx Fatalis managed perfectly fine without dialog trees or even any kind of in-depth dialogs.

 

[Cazzeris]

Good news from the Gamescom update:

It's worth noting that none of the Kickstarter money is being used for the Xbox port. The money we got from Microsoft covers the port and there is a little extra to make the main game better.

http://blog.thimbleweedpark.com/gamescom_debrief

Looks like Gilbert's priorities weren't so questionable after all

 

[MRY]

Good news from the Gamescom update

Maybe he can use that "little extra" to hire a writer and have dialogue trees.

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone was (or should be) concerned that KS funds were being diverted to make the XBox port. Rather, the concern is that the interface for a console game is very different from that of a PC point-and-click, and that difference exerts its own demands on design. I mean, if it's a point-and-click console game where you have to use the joystick to aim the cursor, it will be godawful on the console. But assuming it follows more modern conventions, the interface will be different, and that difference will color how the environments operate. There is nontrivial risk that that the need to accommodate a console interface will shape the design in both versions of the game. This happens with some frequency, almost always for the worse for PC games because the mouse-and-keyboard combination is so wonderful for certain kinds of games.

Crooked Bee: I disagree with your usage of "superfluous." I suppose it is true that you can have a certain kind of adventure game that is great without dialogue trees. You can also have a certain kind of adventure game that is great without an inventory (e.g., LOOM), or with tank controls (e.g., Grim Fandago), or without graphics (e.g., text adventures), or without a defined PC or dialogue (e.g., many Myst-likes or Escape the Room flash games). Depending on how broadly you define "adventure game," then I think buzz is right: any given feature can be called "superfluous" and maybe even many features in tandem are still superfluous, if by that we just mean "not absolutely required for greatness." But the fact that a feature is not absolutely required does not mean that its absence should cause no worry: as Chris Rock remarked, just because you can drive with your feet doesn't mean you should.

In this case, I think it is reasonable for him not to put in dialogue trees if he doesn't want 'em; it's true that there are plenty of old adventure games that went without, including the older Lucas Arts games. And contra a post earlier in this thread, I disagree that "[a]dding dialog is one of the most straight-forward parts of coding an adventure game, as far as I understand it." It's not necessarily super-easy to code if the trees involve a lot of conditionals, and it's certainly time-consuming to write.

I tentatively think that their omission might not be a bad idea in a game that is driven more by puzzle and interaction than by narrative. Obviously, if dialogue trees are replaced by long jRPG-style conversations, that is purely bad (in my opinion). But if they're replaced by short responses, then I think you avoid a typical adventure game problem which is that dialogue trees often are just a semi-interactive "click to continue" where you get to choose the order of content but have to get through all the content -- trees thus encourage long dialogues (and mask lengthy non-interactive or minimally interactive sequences). As a writer, I certainly enjoy being able to have long dialogues, but that's because the games I like to make are narratively dense. I'm not sure Thimbleweed Park should be narratively dense, and if it isn't, then having a lighter dialogue system may be better.

 

[Crooked Bee]

I don't think we disagree on the practical level. Most dialogue trees in most adventure games are superfluous because they are simply "click to continue" or "click to learn info about X" or simply "tell me more about [this particular aspect of what we've been talking about]".

I think your examples of tank controls or graphics are a bit disingenuous, though, because they are of a completely different kind. My argument is more specific, in that I firmly believe that a classic-style graphical adventure of a Lucas Arts or Sierra variety does not in general require dialogue trees to be great (in this particular subgenre), unless you simply like dialogue trees for their own sake or aim to do something like Monkey Island's insult swordfighting with them. (The latter being one of the very few examples where dialogue trees are meaningful and possibly even irreplaceable. Although are those really trees?)

In that sense, I maintain that dialogue trees are superfluous for this subgenre unless you are a 90s dialogue tree fetishist.

I also believe keywords can make for a deeper system than dialogue trees, but that's a separate discussion for another time.

 

[Tramboi]

For what it's worth, I don't think anyone was (or should be) concerned that KS funds were being diverted to make the XBox port. Rather, the concern is that the interface for a console game is very different from that of a PC point-and-click, and that difference exerts its own demands on design. I mean, if it's a point-and-click console game where you have to use the joystick to aim the cursor, it will be godawful on the console.

But this is the old school experience of Maniac Mansion on a C64 without a mouse

 

[Tramboi]

I also believe keywords can make for a deeper system than dialogue trees, but that's a separate discussion for another time.

Clickable or typable ?
Because clickable is "Click to continue" too, and typable is often very frustrating because of the limited answers. Especially with voiceovers.

I love dialogue trees because they make you more involved in the conversation.
And sometimes you can have a puzzle.

 

[Crooked Bee]

Clickable or typable ?
Because clickable is "Click to continue" too, and typable is often very frustrating because of the limited answers. Especially with voiceovers.

A combination of both, in a perfect case scenario. Limited answers is a problem only because most (read: all) keyword system implementations have been really lazy so far. If you're willing to write long-ass dialogue trees though, doing a versatile keyword parser instead shouldn't be too much of a problem, scripting complexities aside. (As long as it involves good, sharp and/or thoughtful writing and not just boring text dumps, of course.) My ideal system for RPGs and adventure games alike is tone+keyword. I believe VD, of all people, once wrote a solid lengthy post about that.

Dunno about voiceovers because I don't really care. I usually skip those anyway; I prefer just reading text.

But again, there is a lot of nuance to be considered here, with examples and all. So that was just throwing it out there on my part. My broader point was, I guess, that unless you design your game specifically (and cleverly) around what dialogue trees and only dialogue trees can do, there aren't that many things they are strictly speaking required for.

 

[Tramboi]

But again, there is a lot of nuance to be considered here, with examples and all. So that was just throwing it out there on my part. My broader point was, I guess, that unless you design your game specifically (and cleverly) around what dialogue trees and only dialogue trees can do, there aren't that many things they are strictly speaking required for.

That's for sure. But I like them, making a few choices in the conversation (even if it's only superficial) makes me closer to Guybrush than to Zak or Rosella.
Infocom had a good theoretical system with ask, say and tell but real-world iimplementation was often frustrating.

 

[MRY]

I don't think we disagree on the practical level. Most dialogue trees in most adventure games are superfluous because they are simply "click to continue" or "click to learn info about X" or simply "tell me more about [this particular aspect of what we've been talking about]".

Even if that's true, I don't think that makes them "superfluous," for a couple of reasons. First, if you replaced them with a single long cutscene in which all of the necessary information is conveyed, it would radically change the tenor of the game -- even the minimal interaction of picking the order of information means that the character is doing what the player says, rather than just following a script. Second, if you removed the dialogues instead of having them run as a cutscene, you would gut the narrative content of the game. So while they may be superfluous to the puzzles in many games, I don't think adventure games are so essentially about puzzles that you can describe the narrative as superfluous. Adventure games exist at the intersection of stories and puzzles; exactly where and how those vectors intersect is different in every game, but for a certain kind of character-driven narrative, I think dialogue trees are pretty important.

For that reason, I think it is not a matter of "you simply lik[ing] dialogue trees for their own sake" so much as liking the kind of stories that can be told by relatively lengthy dialogues, because those kinds of dialogues work best with dialogue trees. (Keyword systems have many upsides, but compelling dialogue is not one of them.)

I think your examples of tank controls or graphics are a bit disingenuous, though, because they are of a completely different kind.

That's pretty conclusory, so I'm not sure what you're saying. I'm certainly not being "disingenuous," though I may be wrong. I didn't read your point to be limited to "classic-style graphical adventure of a Lucas Arts or Sierra variety." Does that exclude Loom? Grim Fandango?

Dialogue trees are conventional in classic Lucas Arts games. They are also conventional in games by Revolution and Micropose and AdventureSoft, though not in Westwood's games or (IIRC) in Discworld. They are used in the two best-regarded Sierra franchises (QFG and GK). While it is true that there are more exceptions to dialogue trees than there are exceptions to point-and-click controls or inventories, I'm not sure why that should matter. Something is "not absolutely necessary" if there is a single example of something succeeding without it. If Loom succeeds without an inventory, then inventories are superfluous by your definition; if GK succeeds with tank controls, then point-and-click controls are superfluous, too.

While I am confident that the feel of Maniac Mansion can be captured without dialogue trees, I'm skeptical that the same is true of the actual golden age of Lucas Arts games, which is the 90s. Your response might be, "Right, this proves it's 90s fetishism." But fetishism suggests an irrationality that I think you haven't (and can't prove): dialogue trees enable lengthy inter-character dialogues; they enable multiple punchlines to jokes (and sometimes permit punchlines at all); they allow the player to feel he or she has agency over the character's personality, even if that is an illusion. All of these things are important parts of the experience. It's obviously true that you can make something that we would call an adventure game without dialogue trees, and it might be great! But it would be fundamentally different.

 

[JarlFrank]

For 90s Lucas Arts adventures, dialogue trees are great. Example that comes to mind: all the funny things you can say to Mad Marty.

 

[Crooked Bee]

I will think about this some more, but so far to me what you're saying amounts to "I like the feel of dialogue trees." Which is fair enough I guess. But personally, some very specific stuff aside, I can easily imagine a Monkey Island 1/2 style game without dialogue trees as such, and if you're looking for proof, then I don't think you've proven that dialogue trees are required either except for, again, some very specific stuff (punchlines, lengthy back-and-forth, agency; the latter being especially dubious to me*).

Also, another thing that I believe is worth considering is that all or most of the things you've mentioned do not really require dialogue trees, but merely dialogue lists. Which is a different logical structure. It would, of course, be interesting to compare the two in-depth.

* I do believe that the "feeling of agency" that dialogue trees ostensibly provide is part of the 90s dialogue tree fetishism (which is characteristic of the Codex as a whole, as Fallout and PS:T show). That is also how I read your usage of "conventional". I am aware that you do not share this position, but personally I don't feel any (no matter how relative) lack of agency in games with no dialogue trees. In the specific case of keywords, furthermore, those can arguably allow for even more / better agency.

Something is "not absolutely necessary" if there is a single example of something succeeding without it. If Loom succeeds without an inventory, then inventories are superfluous by your definition; if GK succeeds with tank controls, then point-and-click controls are superfluous, too.

No, that's not what I mean. If an adventure game without dialogue trees can succeed at (most of) the same things that one with dialogue trees can succeed at, except if the latter is making some exceptional use of dialogue trees that I've yet to encounter in most adventure games (including the classic Lucas Arts ones), then yes, I believe dialogue trees are superfluous.

Saying that a graphical adventure game can succeed without tank controls is by comparison trivial and, yes, comes off as a bit disingenuous to me.

 

[MRY]

A combination of both, in a perfect case scenario. Limited answers is a problem only because most (read: all) keyword system implementations have been really lazy so far. If you're willing to write long-ass dialogue trees though, doing a versatile keyword parser instead shouldn't be too much of a problem, scripting complexities aside. (As long as it involves good, sharp and/or thoughtful writing and not just boring text dumps, of course.) My ideal system for RPGs and adventure games alike is tone+keyword.

Keyword systems present four major challenges that cannot (I don't think) be viably addressed in the context of games in which the quality of writing (and narrative experience) is important.

(1) How do you gate information? Early keyword systems allowed you to access any response given you knew the right keyword. This creates considerable metagaming problems.

(2) How do you make a conversation flow? While dialogue trees do permit a certain degree of insane topic-jumping, they can also focus the conversation such that responses flow logically from prompts. This is much harder to do with a keyword system because (typically), rather than having say five responses to choose from, you have 50 or 100.

(3) How do you make sure that the game's response to the keyword accurate reflects player intent? For example, if I'm talking to a character and type in "murder" do I mean: (i) "You're the murderer!" (ii) "Who is the murderer?" (iii) "Could you murder the bartender for me?" (iv) "I think murder is a heinous crime, do you?" (v) "Can you tell me more about the murder?" etc. etc. I gather you think this can be solved with tone settings, but I'm not persuaded -- too many tones, and the system becomes overly cumbersome, too few and you don't really fix the problem.

(4) How do you address the fact that there are vastly more viable things that you can reasonably ask a character than writers can reasonably write about? The classic response is to say, "I don't know anything about that" or "Ask someone else" or something like that. But that is a pretty crappy solution, as is the Daggerfall approach of just having generic text shared among classes of people. It is true that there is no content difference between a dialogue tree that permits five options and a keyword system that recognizes five keywords. But there is a huge difference in experience between them: the limits of a constrained system have a way of disappearing, whereas the limits of an unconstrained system appear over and over and over again.

Keyword systems are wonderful from a puzzle-solving standpoint; they feel much more like I'm playing a game. And in the very best text adventures that are focused heavily on making keyword dialogue systems work (Emily Short has written some, such as Alabaster, Galatea, and City of Secrets), sometimes keyword systems actually coexist with strong narrative and good writing. But that is typically true because the keyword system exists in a ludicrously enclosed space: a single room with a single interlocutor, with little or no world-state beyond the conversation itself. Moreover, they are in games that are self-consciously and explicitly literary and non-game-like -- in other words, you have player buy-in to treat the experience as a text to be savored, and not as a challenge to be overcome. That's not the way most people play RPGs (or typical adventure games).

I think you can have a keyword system in a game where dialogue is not an important way of conveying character and narrative, and writing style is perhaps less important. But that is just a different kind of game.

(Incidentally, are there great keyword games I'm overlooking?)

 

[Crooked Bee]

You picked up on keywords, but my argument wasn't about keywords at all and I explicitly said I'm not really read to discuss them yet. Mea culpa for bringing them up I guess. So far, though, nothing you've said proves that dialogue trees add anything except for some vague "feels"-based things. Which are important if you're riding on nostalgia or just want to be literal about recreating the experience, but again, superfluous in the sense I defined it above.

Saying that you can't have strong narrative without dialogue trees would be weird, too, so I assume that's not what you're saying.

As for keywords, some of those are legitimate problems I guess (at least 1 and 2; I believe 3 and 4 are strawmen, however).

(Incidentally, are there great keyword games I'm overlooking?)

No. Which is a major part of the problem.