Is "origin" answer always more preferable over "normal" answer in conversations?

[Bloodartist]

I actually hope that choosing one dialogue option doesn't erase all the other options.

Depends on context, but most likely it will. The point is that if you befriend person A, you make an enemy out of person B. Meaningful choices by definition means that your choices have consequences, and most likely result of this is that other options become unavailable. I very much like this, and it improves replay value in addition to immersion. I seriously HATE the modern trend of "I want everything without paying anything and without consequences".

For example, if you decided to ignore Stouts tampered credchip in the flatheadbot mission and not help her, you make a friend out of Anthony Gilchrist and most likely an enemy out of Stout.

 

[Guest 4406876]

It depends, sometimes people answer in ways totally disconnected from their experience or social status in order to obtain a certain reaction or hide things that may give them and advantage, as a consequence, later on. Background-choice answer might not be your preferred answer at all times. Let's say you're doing a mission and some guys don't really like corpos but you're one of them and you prefer to keep it hidden for a better incognito thing, you might play it chill. Obviously it depends on how it's gonna be implemented in game, that another story, and if you actually can gain such advantages. All these things require extremely clever "social" design tied to mission flows and outcomes to keep it seamless and not "on your face" all the time. We'll see. Even speculating on such things is pointless till you're actually playing the game, and it's dangerous because it could increase hype in a direction that devs might not even considered. I don't expect the game to have such big social deals, just outcomes, with some of them that might not be so substantial to the future development of the story and might just die in there.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

I'd say that depends on the options themselves.
If the option is a question then other available questions should still be available.
If the option is a statement then the conversation should probably move on.

Anyway you should (most of the times) be able to come back on questions.
That's one of the common things in games dialogues that I hate the most, and which makes me guessing "So, what can I choose which won't makes the dialogue wheel advance to the next step?", a question I of course never have to ask myself IRL.

 

[VelWu]

You played Mass Effect – am I right? Because what you're asking is what I was thinking when I saw, how highlighted the "origin"-option was in the dialogue menu and it reminded me of Paragon/Renegade, which was always preferable, if you wanted the optimal outcome.

I hope it's not, because choices that are no-brainers, aren't choices.

Probably need to define what "optimal outcome" means.

In Mass Effect 2, the mission where you meet Grunt, there are moderately easy Paragon/Renegade options which let you intimidate a mercenary into not announcing your presents via the radio. The other option basically let you shoot him to death.

That's not a no-brainer. I shot the merc on one playthrough even tho intimidating him was probably the "optimal" outcome. So there you go.

 

[fridgeband]

Depends on context, but most likely it will. The point is that if you befriend person A, you make an enemy out of person B. Meaningful choices by definition means that your choices have consequences, and most likely result of this is that other options become unavailable. I very much like this, and it improves replay value in addition to immersion.

No, I don't mean like that. I mean like types of dialogue other than that. I don't like it when games unnecessarily take dialogue options and just erase them, even though there is no real reason why I couldn't simply proceed to ask another question or say another important thing I had to say.

I seriously HATE the modern trend of "I want everything without paying anything and without consequences".

Where are you getting that from? I have literally never seen a single video game in my entire life ever overtly attempt to do this in any way. Can you show me a few examples?

For example, if you decided to ignore Stouts tampered credchip in the flatheadbot mission and not help her, you make a friend out of Anthony Gilchrist and most likely an enemy out of Stout.

But why do you assume that I'm talking about diplomacy-related interactions in specific and somehow excluding other possible dialogue situations?

This is exactly what I said in my previous post:
"I actually hope that choosing one dialogue option doesn't erase all the other options. I want to be able to go through all the dialogue available if I choose, and avoid the pieces of dialogue that I do not want to say, for example if there was a good reason to not say certain things in certain situations, like during the maelstrom gang credit chip scene for example.

I hope that all the choices cycle back to choices that were not asked yet, so that V can say everything that needs to be said, and ask all questions that need to be asked before deciding that they are satisfied and end the conversation with another option on the bottom.

I hope it's also possible to leave an NPC's conversation, and then return later and be able to try to ask the same questions again, and also ask questions and say things that you forgot to previously say, just in case I press the wrong button and skip the dialogue or ask the wrong question by accident and end up permanently locked out of something I desperately needed to know, or wanted to do."

Post automatically merged: Jul 7, 2020

I'd say that depends on the options themselves.
If the option is a question then other available questions should still be available.
If the option is a statement then the conversation should probably move on.

I see what you mean and I agree with that. But maybe I wouldn't move on just because of a statement, just in case I have multiple statements to make. In games with dialogue I often feel trapped into going down certain paths just because my character is suddenly unable to simply speak and say the other things that are still left to be said. Often times I'm asking "wait, why can't I just say this now? it's important, so why did the option disappear just because I said the other thing before?"

You know what I mean?

 

[Suhiira]

You know what I mean?

Yep!
But that the same time I realize the limits of video games mean "conversations" really aren't.
They're brief, and usually to the point.

 

[VelWu]

Yep!
But that the same time I realize the limits of video games mean "conversations" really aren't.
They're brief, and usually to the point.

Depends on what the RPG priotizes, I suppose.

In settings like Dragon Age / The Witcher you could have long conversations because the narrative allows side character development. Mass Effect also allows lengthy dialogues that have little to do with the story.

Whereas in Skyrim / Fallout things are, as you say, brief and to the point.

 

[fridgeband]

Yep!
But that the same time I realize the limits of video games mean "conversations" really aren't.
They're brief, and usually to the point.

Based on what, and why? I see no limitations other than the ones that are intentionally built into them. If dialogue is limited or cut because of speaking another dialogue choice, it's because it was put there intentionally. Maybe it was a good reason or maybe even it happened from a lack of any reason, resulting from an oversight where devs of games from the past (I'm not talking about CDPR just other random devs from other games in the past) just didn't think it was possible that maybe the player would be interested in experiencing many different dialogue options, assuming they were only interested in the one they chose, but not the others.

I just want CDPR to avoid that kind of stuff so I can (in most situations) choose most choices and then choose when to manually end the conversation if possible, unless the NPC feels the need to end it first of course.
example:
dialogue option 1
dialogue option 2
dialogue option 3
dialogue option 4
end dialogue button

I don't want choosing any of those to make the other options disappear unless I press "end dialogue", and even then I would like to be able to return later and still see the options I haven't chose yet and try them then. I'm also scared of getting stuck in a situation where I'm listening to an NPC respond to something I say but then for some reason there's something that disrupts my game and then I couldn't hear what the NPC said, but have no way to ask them the same question again and hear their response again. I hope there is a way to hear again, or read what NPC's have previously said before so that it isn't possible to get permanently locked out of something because you are so confused and missing information that you can never figure it out because V is just lost and doesn't know what to do anymore. Or maybe I was just very interested in something the NPC had to say. I hope that's it's never really an issue, because so many other games get this wrong, you know?

 

[4RM3D]

Yep!
But that the same time I realize the limits of video games mean "conversations" really aren't.
They're brief, and usually to the point.

Planescape: Torment and Disco Elysium would like to have a word with you.

EDIT:

Spoiler

 

[fridgeband]

Depends on what the RPG priotizes, I suppose.

In settings like Dragon Age / The Witcher you could have long conversations because the narrative allows side character development. Mass Effect also allows lengthy dialogues that have little to do with the story.

Whereas in Skyrim / Fallout things are, as you say, brief and to the point.

Witcher 3 really upset me a lot because I was never 100% sure what I was going to say before I said it when selecting an option. Mass effect 3 had similar issues. I got locked out of so many quests in Witcher 3 just because I said something right, but just said that right thing the wrong way somehow, often the last save game being many hours ago, or so far away that It was already overwritten by several other saves because I had no idea that it would ever have a negative effect if I had said what I said. I think it's very important for Cyberpunk2077 to have 1:1 dialogue options, meaning that they should display exactly what V will say in the option, so that the player always knows which option they actually want to select. Since this will show more dialogue and it takes time to read, I feel that dialogue options should basically never have a timer attached to them, or I will never be able to think about my options. If I can't think about my options, then I do not consider "panic choosing an option" to be a real option, because I really have no idea what I'm choosing, so it's not a real choice. I like to think though my options before choosing anything, and if the game rushes me then I lose all sense of enjoyment and lose interest, because if the game prevents me from making careful and informed choices and rushes me like for example when the situation doesn't really call for it, this completely shatters my immersion because in real life I would just say what I need to say, where as in the game, V would just stand there silently and then blurt out something random that they don't actually intend to say, or stay silent because an invisible timer ran out and made them unable to talk or select a dialogue option to speak. That would make no sense at all. Too many games make these mistakes and it drives me up a wall.

But I feel like maybe CDPR knows about this. I have some amount of confidence that they know what frustrates players, and will probably avoid that kind of stuff. I hope.

 

[VelWu]

Mass effect 3 had similar issues. If I can't think about my options, then I do not consider "panic choosing an option" to be a real option, because I really have no idea what I'm choosing, so it's not a real choice. I like to think though my options before choosing anything, and if the game rushes me then I lose all sense of enjoyment and lose interest

Are you referring to the Paragon / Renegade interrupts? They pop up every now and then, and it's just hard not to panic and click them.

Personally, I like how Mass Effect (except Andromeda) games had a dichotomy so you could safely play either pure Paragon or Renegade and not feel too confused. Though the latter gets insufferable occasionally.

Dragon Age (since 2) and Fallout 4 also guide your hand with clearly labeled options with those pretty icons on the dialog wheel or fixed positions, so it's comfortably easy to build consistent characters in those games. I wonder if the same thing can be expected from CP2077? The demo vids so far show nothing of the sort.

 

[BluPixel]

Dragon Age (since 2) and Fallout 4 also guide your hand with clearly labeled options with those pretty icons on the dialog wheel or fixed positions, so it's comfortably easy to build consistent characters in those games. I wonder if the same thing can be expected from CP2077? The demo vids so far show nothing of the sort.

Yeah. Reminds me of the very accurate "shove dijskstra aside" lol

 

[Cereborn]

This isn't something we can really know without playing it. Games can play it in different ways. I know in The Outer Worlds, the dialogue with a skill check attached was absolutely not always the preferred option, and you could get yourself in hot water if you just picked the skill check every time.

 

[VelWu]

I know in The Outer Worlds, the dialogue with a skill check attached was absolutely not always the preferred option, and you could get yourself in hot water if you just picked the skill check every time.

Why does that sound so much like Fallout: New Vegas?

 

[Bloodartist]

"I actually hope that choosing one dialogue option doesn't erase all the other options. I want to be able to go through all the dialogue available if I choose, and avoid the pieces of dialogue that I do not want to say, for example if there was a good reason to not say certain things in certain situations, like during the maelstrom gang credit chip scene for example.

I hope that all the choices cycle back to choices that were not asked yet, so that V can say everything that needs to be said, and ask all questions that need to be asked before deciding that they are satisfied and end the conversation with another option on the bottom.

So you think that looping dialog options and repeated lines are okay? Well I don't, really. That is an annoyance.
I do think though that certain important options should remain available options in the dialog unless you have specifically said something to aggravate the NPC or in some other way negate what you were about to say. But looping dialog is a no-no.

I am 100% sure that the dialog in CP2077 will vastly outclass the dialog from Witcher 3 which was, outside the main storyline dialog, pretty dire. To the point I considered making a meme out of it. Outside the main storyline dialog there were usually only 1 meaningful choice that actually advanced the dialog, and the rest were "tell me more" options. Considering Geralts lack of personality and emotions, it was, and still is, obnoxious.

Why does that sound so much like Fallout: New Vegas?

Fallout NV dialog is something to aspire to.

 

[lelxrv]

I'm just loving how The Witcher 3 became a prime example of how NOT to write and how NOT to design a game.

 

[fridgeband]

So you think that looping dialog options and repeated lines are okay? Well I don't, really. That is an annoyance.
I do think though that certain important options should remain available options in the dialog unless you have specifically said something to aggravate the NPC or in some other way negate what you were about to say. But looping dialog is a no-no.

I am 100% sure that the dialog in CP2077 will vastly outclass the dialog from Witcher 3 which was, outside the main storyline dialog, pretty dire. To the point I considered making a meme out of it. Outside the main storyline dialog there were usually only 1 meaningful choice that actually advanced the dialog, and the rest were "tell me more" options. Considering Geralts lack of personality and emotions, it was, and still is, obnoxious.

I fully understand. I am in some ways willing to tolerate looping dialogue if it saves me from being locked out of dialogue, or being unable to re-listen to dialogue again if I forgot what was said. Maybe V has a recording device and can re-watch old dialogue's through braindance? I would be willing to settle for that.

Post automatically merged: Jul 8, 2020

I'm just loving how The Witcher 3 became a prime example of how NOT to write and how NOT to design a game.

Well, you know, it was a really cool game, but it also did things in very inescapablely obnoxious and tedious ways, and people are desperate to point out how those things went wrong because they want to prevent that from being their experience again in Cyberpunk2077 which is totally understandable. People want to see real progression and improvement.

 

[metalmaniac21]

I'm just loving how The Witcher 3 became a prime example of how NOT to write and how NOT to design a game.

And that's why Cyberpunk 2077 is designed and written by Twitcher 2 crew. As journos indicate in their previews about the whole tone and stiffness of the game.

 

[Suhiira]

@VelWu , @fridgeband , and @4RM3D , there are ALWAYS exceptions, I was referring to the general case.

 

[Lucian06]

Planescape: Torment and Disco Elysium would like to have a word with you.

EDIT:

Spoiler

It is sad that even Dragon Age 2 offers more dialogue options than Cyberpunk (and no i don't like dragon age 2 and inquisition) but i want more options than just 2. so far the dialog system seems to be very limited.