Dialogue NOW WITH POLL!

[Sardukhar]

Dialogue NOW WITH POLL!

So, dialogue.

Just ran across this bit on Andromeda: "Instead of knowing if your actions will be fundamentally 'good or bad' ahead of time when triggering them, we now have more options labelled 'head', 'casual', 'heart' and 'professional'." Don't know if that means 4 choices or just 4 labels for X choices.

So, thoughts/hopes on CPunk dialogue?

I liked Fallout 4. Yep. And you can't say mean things about me because it's against the Rules. Ha-ha! BUT, the chat was not great in depth..or consistent theme.

Spoiler

And that's with the dialogue fix that shows you what you are about to say. Otherwise, you got this amusing "mood" choice. Anyway.

Witcher 3, mind you, also had relatively limited options, but the writing was so much better. Note that Geralt doesn't need a lot of role-play convo choices - he's Geralt. Gruff, dry-humoured, scary at times. Smart, but shows it rarely.

Spoiler

Now, here are some from my favourite games. You may not agree, but I don't care because awesome. If you have a game to add, great! If I like it. Otherwise, pfui!

So hard to pick just one Planescape: Torment example. This isn't the longest selection, ( those run to 10 choices!) or the most words (waaay a lot) but I like it because it shows how you can change an NPCs perspective with words, ( some GOOD WRITIN there, too), or just ignore it and go back to the main question line. This is just a sub-category! So good. Some call PST a reading simulator. They will burn one day. They aren't totally wrong, though, and this kind of quality requires a fair bit of attention from the player.

Spoiler

Vampire Bloodlines. SO much good. Typically only up to 4 dialogue choices and fairly terse ones, but a lot of richness packed in. I've selected two examples. The first demonstrates how certain choices are skill-enabled and will have varying results. The second is an example of Malkavian-talk, a Clan in VTMB that is insane and sees, says and does things that other Clans just can't.

Spoiler

Spoiler

This last example is from Fallout 2. FO2 usually runs to 4-6 choices, has a fair bit of reading but less than PST. It also has the Stupid option. Unlike the Malkavian, any build can run a really low Intelligence and this will happen. Also happen if your Int drop from drugs or whatever. Note the translation. Just brilliant stuff.

Spoiler

Of some note from this is that the game will notice you are so stupid and interactions will reflect that, to a much greater degree than, say, the Malkavian option above.

These games all have a fair bit of writing in them, including Fallout 4, with over 100,000 lines of dialogue that took, according to Beth, "years to create." No idea how many words that is, but given some of the spoken dialogue in FO4, hundreds of thousands. Of course as we all know, fair bit was repetitive, too.

Witcher 3 ran to to about 450,000 words. Not too repetitive, either.

PST has about one million words. Thaaaat's a lot of reading.

So, what are your thoughts? How deep do you want CDPR to go? Are you okay with repetitve, shallow NPC chatter? Are you interested in a Stupid/Corporate/Cyberpsycho speech package option?

 

[Azriel7]

You picked my top 3 favorite games (PST, Original Fallout, VTMB) and I love their dialog system. These are the games I want to inspire RPG and exactly the type of dialog I want in cyberpunk. A rich wordy variety, with branching dialog/outcomes and skill based dialog as well. I have to point out the reason we have such rich dialog is because the protag is silent, if we had a VO protag, those dialog would be greatly dumbed down. It's the main reason I want a silent protag, so I have great dialog and choices.

 

[Suhiira]

PST might be a bit much to hope for ... but I will ... on a realistic note I'd hope for Bloodlines.
The number of possible responses isn't as important as their variety. And let's face it, in Fallout 4 ... what variety?

 

[Mebrilia]

PST might be a bit much to hope for ... but I will ... on a realistic note I'd hope for Bloodlines.
The number of possible responses isn't as important as their variety. And let's face it, in Fallout 4 ... what variety?

i am whit Sulhira on that

And about fo4 variety of dialogue pretty much were: Yes,Sarcastic yes /no,No (no real choice here),Questions..

 

[Zagor-Te-Nay]

Older games were bloated with dialogue which was a lot of times incoherent, nonsensical and of poor quality to accommodate as "many options"...from Don Quixote to more rabid version of Stallin. Malkavian dialogue from Bloodlines is a good example: most of it was rubbish, but everyone remembers "funny lines". And like in Fallout IV in terms of how npcs respond it was: Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, No/Later/Kill. Like novelist trying to write without having a clue about his own main character.
I'd go with a couple of options, each feeling meaningful and sane/believable, characters responds appropriately, no absolutely superior options, plus information. Alpha Protocol did it well, at least in some respects.
Based on their personality, some went along with charm, some respected more professional/straightforward attitude, others responded to more aggressive/assertive behavior. Quality dialogue is inherently linked to character design and illustrates dynamic between them: more does not mean better. I want to be lied to, manipulated, bullied and so on... otherwise, it's like watching two billboards having conversation.
Stats influencing dialogue...lines will be different based on it, like perceptive characters noticing details in environment, empathic/charismatic ones in behavior( intuitively implemented, without stat x required for y).
Also this time around: clear lines in what the player says, like in Deus Ex. I don't know why developers keep going with very short descriptive lines thinking we can instantly read their mind on this.

 

[Rawls]

Functionally I actually really liked the dialogue wheel in DA:I (don't hurt me). The only problem with it as a mechanic is the option you choose doesn't always reflect what you will say (but that's pretty common in RPG dialogue unless they write out the whole comment). In terms of quality of dialogue, I would say TW3 is the cream of the crop. So just keep the same writers.

 

[RepHope]

VA costs are the main reasoning you don't get long-winded dialogue options like PS:T anymore, outside of isometric games. I like having that much dialogue, but it's not really realistic if the PC is voiced. For that reason, I prefer the silent protagonist V:TMB model. But since I suspect CDPR will continue having voiced protags, I'm fine with the W3 model, as long as I get more control than I could with a set character like Geralt.

 

[Azriel7]

Voiced Protaganist is EXACTLY why we have limited dumb down dialog. Even the witcher 3 was still very dumbed down mostly one liners with little choice. That works for a fixed character like garalt who is based on a character in the books, but it won't work if CDPR are serious about making a game based on the PNP RPG which allowed you to create your own character (with lifepaths) and allowed you to play the character as you want. If they VO it, then it won't be a unique character, it will just be some predefined character or within a very small spectrum of choices which will probably consist of good, bad, sarcastic...ugh. The games up top gave you a nice selection of dialog, choices and personality types to convey it. Sure, some of the dialog was just window dressing and would get the same response, but it really helped you feel like the character was yours.

 

[CTPhipps]

Voiced Protaganist is EXACTLY why we have limited dumb down dialog. Even the witcher 3 was still very dumbed down mostly one liners with little choice. That works for a fixed character like garalt who is based on a character in the books, but it won't work if CDPR are serious about making a game based on the PNP RPG which allowed you to create your own character (with lifepaths) and allowed you to play the character as you want. If they VO it, then it won't be a unique character, it will just be some predefined character or within a very small spectrum of choices which will probably consist of good, bad, sarcastic...ugh. The games up top gave you a nice selection of dialog, choices and personality types to convey it. Sure, some of the dialog was just window dressing and would get the same response, but it really helped you feel like the character was yours.

I think the voiced protagonist issue has not only sailed but it's not even remotely possible CD Projekt Red will have an unvoiced protagonist. They were the pioneers of using voiced protagonists in RPGs and it was everyone ELSE who was following them. So, unfortunately, I don't think it's going to be the case you're going to get what you want. Quite the contrary, I think it's going to be very much a case of CD_Projekt Red exceeding expectations with VA better than anyone can think. There were like 300,000 lines for The Witcher 3 and 1 million for Planescape Torment but this will probably be even bigger than W3.

So I'm guessing maybe 500,000.

And voiced protagonist is superior in every way other than length due to the fact it requires actual acting and work from the artists, IMHO.

Edit:

On my end, I want a pre-defined protagonist with four dialogue options to respond to matters:

1. Diplomatic/Cultured
2. Gritty/Street Level
3. Wiseass
4. Professional

Basically, model it on Alpha Protocol by Obsidian who did an even better job than Dragon Age 2. Yeah, you'll be limited to four potential personalities but that will be pretty damn good. I also think you should have your responses listed so you know what you're typing even if you lose some of the "surprise" that way.

Those are the archetypes of cyberpunk anyway.

 

[Meccanical]

I remember back in ye olden times they talked about developing a new dialogue system.

Wonder how that went.

 

[Sardukhar]

There were like 300,000 lines for The Witcher 3 and 1 million for Planescape Torment but this will probably be even bigger than W3.

Mm..the Witcher 3 script was about 450,000 words. Not lines. Lines is a variable, but Fallout 4 had 110,000 "lines".

Witcher 3 has 30,000+ lines of dialogue, according to CDPR

So although the line count is very different, I think most of us would agree that W3 voice dialogue seemed a lot deeper and richer than FO4? Partly because it wasn't all re-recorded for a female Geralt, partly because there weren't hundreds of player names to voice repeatedly with both male and female and partly because W3 is better.

But still. Neither was anything near as deep or rich for dialogue as PST, FO 2 or VBL. As for why?

Witcher 3 took nearly 3 years to record the dialogue. That's with a male protagonist and RPG-lite dialogue options. You broaden those choices, you're talking more time and multiples of the cost.

I lean towards thinking we'll have a voiced protagonist as well, one male and one female and four to six dialogue choices, but I hope CDPR will go more deeply into the Role-playing and opt for deeper conversation choices and roles.

Plus Snake Plissken doesn't sound like Carter Burke doesn't sound like Riddick doesn't sound like Ripley doesn't sound like Debbie Harry. My Corporate weasel shouldn't sound like my awesome Rockergirl shouldn't sound like my Corporate Solo shouldn't sound like Snake Plissken.

Because role-playing.

 

[CTPhipps]

The problem is that I don't think your corporate weasal or Solo or Rockerboy sound differently when they're voiceless because they don't sound like anything at all. Voiceless cannot get over the fact that it shows you're a video game and removes you from the story every response. Characters react to nothing and it's really really weird. I think the Witcher 2's and 3's roleplaying was also deeper than V:TM:B even though I absolutely love V:TM:B. The thing about V:TM:B was that it did a good job of keeping it small and the conversation topics on point.

You still had to choose between 3-4 lines for each response in the game and the voiced protagonists reacted to you. There actually wasn't that much more choice, barring Nosferatu and Malkavian specific lines. It's just the differences between them were well handled and the dialogue written to be the kind of stuff people might want to say.

I think one of the biggest issues with voiced protagonists are the fact games seem reluctant to let you actually know what the hell you're going to say so it's less YOU roleplaying than if you had a complete description of your options. Likewise, there have been questionable voice acting in some major releases--Fallout 4 and Dragon Age: Inquisition were both bland performances.

Personally, I do hope they hire someone really famous and good for the VA roles.

A David Hayter, Stephen Russell, or a Michael Masden for the male VA
A Grey Delisle or a Jennifer Hale

Someone we know and recognize

 

[Sardukhar]

The problem is that I don't think your corporate weasal or Solo or Rockerboy sound differently when they're voiceless because they don't sound like anything at all.

That's what imagination is for. It's really tough for me to imagine a Carter Burke when he sounds like Adam Jensen.

A David Hayter, Stephen Russell, or a Michael Masden for the male VA
A Grey Delisle or a Jennifer Hale

Someone we know and recognize

Only then the character will sound like one of two choices. Always forever. And acting like a cowardly but clever liar sounds really, really weird when it's Michael Madsen's voice, for example.

What you're suggesting is fine as long as you only plan to play the game once or twice, are okay with once playthrough as a different gender or don't mind playing a similar Role each time. Otherwise, you're kinda boned.

-Obviously- I'd love, say, 4 voice actors, two of each gender, OR voice actors so good they can do weaselly, hard-core and smart-ass and rich, deep dialogue on the scale of PST or FO2. I'd also like a pony! With a flamethrower!

Mind you, worst case I go with your idea of two playthroughs. Not the end of the world, since one of my favourites will for-sure be represented.

 

[227]

Malkavian dialogue from Bloodlines is a good example: most of it was rubbish, but everyone remembers "funny lines".

Remembering funny lines doesn't preclude the rest being well executed. Oftentimes Malk dialogue was either highlighting the outside-the-box connections made between things (fleet footed god, etcetera), hinting at future plot developments before they happen, or straight-up reading other characters' minds.

They were the pioneers of using voiced protagonists in RPGs and it was everyone ELSE who was following them.

Deus Ex? Ultima 9? Probably a bunch of stuff before even them?

 

[Odinsauge]

I'd like to see different answers based on whats you background, although this makes it quite a lot of work. At least in some main dialogues it would be nice. I don't want to read a novel, but the dialogues must be believable so I prefer Quality over Quantity.
And voice acting is a nice to have, if it doesn't influence the quality of the dialogues to much.

 

[metalmaniac21]

Fun poll, at least one person wants a voiced protagonist but no one wants The Witcher 3 again, it's either PS:T (not a good fit for a sandbox-RPG), Fallout (lots of read but written to be on point, best option for a sandbox-RPG as shown in New Vegas) or Vampires. BTW, Sard what did you mean with "specialized subsets" and how it is different from I WANT MAH RPG choice? It's still gates relied on stats, namely the psycho-break relied on EMP and stupid on intelligence or quantity of "used" alcoholic drinks.

 

[darcler]

Frankly, I'm fine with both oldschool and modern approaches, if they are implemented well enough. There are enough examples both for and against each of them.

Although I don't agree that having player character declaim long-winded speeches is beneficial in any way. I mean, the dialogue is pretty much to get a reaction from whomever you're speaking to, or to obtain some information, so it's the NPCs who would have the most word-count. Various skill-checks aside, I'd argue that PC should only say 1, maybe 2 sentences, and only very, very occasionally express more than that.

That's not to say dialogues are not important for shaping PC.

What I'd like to have is a different set of options per each role, or at least per each background. Someone who's been raised on a street would have different options than someone who'd been raised in a wealthy family, even if only the wording should differ. The way you speak to others, ask for information, negotiate a deal or try to persuade would be approached differently. A solo might promise a violent outcome if his request is not fulfilled, a cop might threaten to "take a closer look" at someone's business, a fixer may promise something in return, and so on.

Although now that I think about it, I pretty much described skill checks

Fallout 4, with over 100,000 lines of dialogue that took, according to Beth, "years to create." No idea how many words that is, but given some of the spoken dialogue in FO4, hundreds of thousands. Of course as we all know, fair bit was repetitive, too.

Are you sure it's really lines of dialogue? I'd imagine most of the writing went into filling various terminals, not dialogues.

On my end, I want a pre-defined protagonist with four dialogue options to respond to matters:
1. Diplomatic/Cultured
2. Gritty/Street Level
3. Wiseass
4. Professional

The problem I have with this approach is that I'd pretty much have to constantly use only one-two options in each dialogue, as the rest simply wouldn't fit my role. This seems pretty limiting, to the point of really becoming more of a spectator, automatically choosing "appropriate" options in order to progress the dialogue.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Somewhere between PST and Fallout 2. And yes, absolutely stat/skill/other gates and %-checks in dialog. And[SUP]2 [/SUP]I keep pushing it, please no voiced/predefined protagonist.

I think PoE did a fairly good job with its dialog systems, the options weren't generally too verbose and there were lots of expressive options based on the characterbuild (race, skill/stat, class, background) and on top of that you could choose the stance in which certain lines were said (stoic, zealous, passionate, etc) very few of which were the sort of win-button choices. Eg. the [skill/stat/whatev.] indicator wasn't a mark for "the right thing to choose", but merely your choice of expression at the moment which was almost never "wrong" and gave different tones and reactions from the NPC's too.The lifepath system from 2020 would be a perfect fit for such dialog system.

To an extent Fallout New Vegas also is a good example.

Also... One thing I tend to dislike is highlighting the "right" lines.

NPC:
"The rats in my cellar are a menace, they attack anyone who goes down there and trying to shoo them with my broom only makes the crazier. One of my stableboys already lost a leg. Now I can't get more wine to sell to the patrons."

Our Hero:
1. I'll handle the rats in your cellar, just leave it to me.
2. What kind of rats are ones that a grown man like you can not handle?
3. What's a... rat?
4. I'll take my leave now.

That's... pretty jarring. Don't do it.

 

[Calistarius]

I think one thing to take note of is that most rpg's with a voiced protagonist tend to be of the "Action role-playing" variaty of RPG's... where as you do not find voiced protagonists as often in the rpg genre of "Role-playing" games, also known as "CRPG's". And yes... there is a differens between the genres of "Role-playing" games and "Action role-playing" games.

Alpha Protocol, Deus Ex (both the original and the new ones), Dragon Age 2, Dragon Age Inquisition, Fallout 4, Mass Effect 1-3, The Witcher games, are all games with a voiced protagonists... but are all also "Action role-playing" games at the same time.

As I said befor... few "Role-playing" games, "CRPG's", have a voiced protagonist... no matter if the rest of the cast in the game is voiced or not. And a very big example of this which properly shows the difference between a Role-playing game, and an Action role-playing game, is Dragon Age. As I mentioned, DA2 and DAI both have voiced protagonists, and are both listed as Action role-playing games... where as Dragon Age: Origins, is/has neither. DAO is listed as a Role-playing game, and it's protagonist is silent. These games may share a world and lore and what not... but the gameplay is a bit differently from one another... with DAO more leaning towards the style of their older games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights, and DA2 and DAI leaning more towards a more action type of gameplay. Which is partly why so many fans of DAO have a problem with DA2 and DAI, since they are not compleatly the same type of rpg game anymore.


So... with that said... currently Cyberpunk 2077's genre is listed as "Role-playing"... not as "Action role-playing". Which might not actually mean anything currently, since we know so little about CP2077. But it could potentually indicate something anyway... that for example the protagonist might not be voiced, since it is not all to common for the specific genre of "Role-playing" to have them voiced... and that it will not be an "action roleplaying" game like for example the Witcher is. Again, we still don't know really what CP2077 will become, and considering CDPR's history with games games it might end up being something simmilar to the Witcher games... but it could still mean that CP2077 might go down a different route all together from the Witcher.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Deus Ex? Ultima 9? Probably a bunch of stuff before even them?

Gothic 1-3 came before The Witcher too.