Option to hide unqualified (and spoiling) interactions/dialogue options?

[Swedrami]

As in an on/off toggle that would hide interactions/dialogue options your version of V does not qualify for?

From what I could gather so far, the current iteration of the dialogue system would show ALL possible options regardless of the chosen life path/background, the currently available skills or the character stats/attributes (if those are checked/rolled against at all?).

As reported the options you cannot select are greyed out, but the fact that they're still visible and could be considered (meta-)spoilers for "what could have been" if your version of V would have chosen a different life path/background, had a different skill set or would have distributed attribute/stat points differently, is a cause for concern.

The original Pillars of Eternity and Pillars of Eternity: Deadfire solved this spoiler-problem through corresponding toggles ("Show Qualifiers" and "Show Unqualified Interactions") - maybe Cyberpunk 2077 could offer something similar?

---

I don't think street kid/corpo/nomad lines should be marked/highlighted in any way. The player shouldn't be aware that he's getting a "special" option, it should have a natural flow.

Coincidentally that's also something Pillars of Eternity/Deadfire's Expert Mode had covered and offered a solution for with "Show Qualifiers".

If checked, it would display interactions/dialogue options with the preceding qualifier-tag, just as it's currently implemented:

[<Hacking Icon> 6/9] I hope you don't screw like you type.
[STREETKID] Look behind you, a three-headed electric sheep!

If left unchecked, it obviously would just show the dialogue line, and thus make it much more immersive:

I hope you don't screw like you type.
Look behind you, a three-headed electric sheep!

---

Addendum by user lv-426:

If they include such an option or options - and I too really hope they do - I'd like to see it extended to the environmental or contextual interactions like

as well.

So that if your character or more specifically if your skills don't meet the requirement (in the above instance Hacking 5 [out of 5]) you don't get to see even the greyed out (Hacking: 1/5) qualifier and something along the lines of Requirement not met or Access denied instead.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

Yes yes yes, please! It shouldn't be difficult to code them out, I suppose.

 

[BabalKabak]

Agreed.

 

[doktor_fleck]

I'm for it.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

The default should be that they don't show the option even existing, if the character can't say it.

 

[Bloodartist]

The default should be that they don't show the option even existing, if the character can't say it.

I would prefer it to be a choice in the options. Otherwise you might miss out on things. In a game with such a deep and complex character skill system this is non-trivial.

 

[Skirlasvoud]

I’d like some method to still be able to discover what we’re missing out on, but as long as we’re not turning the hiding of requirements/outcomes into the default, I see no problem with this proposal and I’ll thumb it up.

I always go for multiple run-throughs to experience everything a branching game has to offer.
I don’t rely on accidental discovery for that either. During my first playthrough I’m happy to wing it, but for any subsequent one I’ll open up a wikia the moment they’re available to see all the options/requirements in advance so I can design the minimal amount of character variations to meet them all.

Far better to experience the game in an efficient half-a-dozen community assisted runs than to have to do that across fifty trial-and-error ones all by myself and still miss out on certain content.

Hiding outcomes as a standard or default will hamper my play style and slow down the community’s collection of information, but as long as we’re not doing that, there’s no reason not to include the option to hide for those with a playstyle other than mine.

Post automatically merged: Jun 20, 2019

I would prefer it to be a choice in the options. Otherwise you might miss out on things. In a game with such a deep and complex character skill system this is non-trivial.

I disagree for reasons mentioned above. I’d like everyone to be encouraged to wonder about different options/requirements/outcomes by being presented with them, so that wikias have a chance to be complete by the end of a first playthrough.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Otherwise you might miss out on things.

That’s not an issue. It’s more the point. People miss out on things, so what?

I don’t mind an options toggle, but generally people should be encouraged to play organically, as they see fit for their character, not to game the system with indicators that tell them ”you need this much of that to say this”.

It’s more rewarding to notice your build works uniquely than to have expected and reached what you already knew was there.

 

[Skirlasvoud]

That is how you play games and the philosophy by which you play them.

I can respect that, but recognise that there are different philosophies to your own.

I don’t like foisting the decisions upon others because they “should” play your way and that their concerns are “not an issue”.

Though I guess we can have an argument that any sort of default does imply exactly that. The default TO SHOW the unaccisble options, implies an inherent bias AGAINST YOUR philosophy kofeiiniturpa.
To that my only argument is that it’s pretty standard across RPGs to show players inaccessible outcomes, and I’d therefore propose that CP77 too have that as the default.

If CDPR feel that there's a convincing case to be made for your own philosophy though, and makes hiding the default, then I'm more than happy to accept that.

 

[Bloodartist]

That’s not an issue.

Of course its an issue, it affects the replay value of the game. You move to a new game once you feel you have played the game "enough", seen all it has to offer. If you haven't noticed elements ingame that are well-hidden, your decision is not well informed. It might not be a big issue though.

That said, I am bit on the fence with this one. I suppose hiding options until you come across them rewards exploration. VtM:bloodlines hides the dialog elements that you are not eligible for, and I cannot fault it to be a bad game. Indeed, I still find stuff I've never seen before, despite the game being around 15 years old. For example, there is a part where you need to go see a crimelord thats lounging at second floor of his own nightclub, and there is a bouncer guarding the way. Only recently I found out that I can get past this guard by grabbing and squeezing his balls (Ok, Wesp5 is continuously working on the game to make this possible..)

 

[gregski]

I was planning to start a thread about it myself!

I think the idea to grey out unavailable dialogue options but still show them to the player is straight out against CDPR design philosophy that they presented until now. They allowed us to miss out on dialogues and quests in their previous games - hell, in The Witcher 2 you missed out on the WHOLE CHAPTER of the game depending on the choice you made. I mean, really CDPR?

And IMO it shouldn't be an option in the menu but those dialogue choices should be hidden by default. It's a huge spoiler and it hinders the replayability of the game.

I was hugely disappointed when I heard about it in the interviews and I sincerely hope CDPR will reconsider.

 

[Skirlasvoud]

Of course its an issue, it affects the replay value of the game. You move to a new game once you feel you have played the game "enough", seen all it has to offer. If you haven't noticed elements ingame that are well-hidden, your decision is not well informed.

And IMO it shouldn't be an option in the menu but those dialogue choices should be hidden by default. It's a huge spoiler and it hinders the replayability of the game.

Hah! Fascinating difference in perspectives.

According to Bloodartist, replayability comes from KNOWING that you're missing out on content, because it encourages you to replay for that content.
According to Gregski, replayability comes from NOT KNOWING if you're missing out on content, because it encourages a replay in the hope of discovering something new.

Personally, I will side with Bloodartist. If for no other reason that I don't have the time or energy to figure out if I've missed anything at all. This seems horribly inefficient to me, someone who MUST HAVE ALL THE CONTENTZ and the thought of missing out would terrify me! I'd rather the game shows me. I'd alt-tab to find a wikia in despair.

@gregski
I wonder, do you ever use guides or wikipedias or the internet at all when playing a game? To know if there was anything you missed out on? Or are you someone who truly goes at it completely alone and is fine with the thought of having missed out on something? Lone person can't cover all the angles in huge game like Witcher 3, can they? And how do you know that you haven't already seen it all and are replaying in vain?

How do you deal with that?

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Of course its an issue, it affects the replay value of the game. You move to a new game once you feel you have played the game "enough", seen all it has to offer.

Nah, it’s more a made up problem out of the symptoms of impatience.

People play the game the way they do, they come to forums to discuss (or just read) about the experiences of others. They say ”I did this that way, it was cool”, someone else tells them they got a different experience from the same situation with a slightly different character, they go try it out. And if not, then not. Not a big deal.

These things don’t need to be spelled out for the players. They don’t need to be specifically told that they are right now missing out on ”this very specific thing”. It’ll become apparent on its own in a much more satisfying way.

And if the game is left unreplayed simply due to not knowing the dialog opportunities and their requirements beforehand, there’s something wrong with the game as a whole (to that specific individual).

 

[Skirlasvoud]

someone else tells them they got a different experience from the same situation with a slightly different character, they go try it out.

I feel that's making Bloodartists' argument. Something that tells you you've missed out on something in the game. That's what we want too, but you just want this to happen in a very specific way that caters specifically to your tastes and forces it onto others. Not sure I can agree or find a way to appreciate that.

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

I feel that's making Bloodartists' argument. Something tells you you've missed out on something. That's what we want too, but you just want this to happen in a very specific way that caters specifically to your tastes and forces it onto others. Not sure I can agree or appreciate that.

No no. I don’t require or want anyone to tell me anything. That was referring to people moving on after they’ve ran through the game.

I wish to discover these things on my own.

That one might overhear something went amiss in his run from others, is a possibility, not the purpose. The purpose is to discover those possibilities on ones own.

 

[Skirlasvoud]

Ah, got it. I think I can bring myself to understanding that desire.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

I was planning to start a thread about it myself!

I think the idea to grey out unavailable dialogue options but still show them to the player is straight out against CDPR design philosophy that they presented until now. They allowed us to miss out on dialogues and quests in their previous games - hell, in The Witcher 2 you missed out on the WHOLE CHAPTER of the game depending on the choice you made. I mean, really CDPR?

And IMO it shouldn't be an option in the menu but those dialogue choices should be hidden by default. It's a huge spoiler and it hinders the replayability of the game.

I was hugely disappointed when I heard about it in the interviews and I sincerely hope CDPR will reconsider.

I'm happy if the default is "hidden", but I wouldn't say no to the choice. I mean, I'd never use it and I think it's super fun to talk with a friend of mine who has played the game and tells me he had a complete different experience, but if someone wants to see those choices, well, not my problem.

The important thing for me is that CDPR gives us the option to hide this stuff, AT LEAST (how hard can it be to code something like that? "If requirement is satisfied then show" or "if requirement is not satisfied then hide").

 

[gregski]

@gregski
I wonder, do you ever use guides or wikipedias or the internet at all when playing a game? To know if there was anything you missed out on? Or are you someone who truly goes at it completely alone and is fine with the thought of having missed out on something? Lone person can't cover all the angles in huge game like Witcher 3, can they? And how do you know that you haven't already seen it all and are replaying in vain?

How do you deal with that?

I guess I never had that completionist in me. I'm fine with going in blind and leaving certain things unknown without a plan to know them when I replay the game. I think you could call it a "spontaneous" approach to games, I also don't use wikis or internet to research stuff after or during my playthrough, I use ingame journals to know the characters & events but that's about it.

I think the beauty of this approach is that you get to be surprised once you go to discuss the game on forums for example, you find out that other people had different experience than you and THAT is for me the main motivator to go back and replay the game.

I just don't have this systematic approach of "covering all angles" and "having seen it all". I take the game for what it is and enjoy it, immerse myself in the moment instead of treating the game & story as a complex system that I need to reverse engineer.

Another interesting aspect of the issue - I can totally imagine certain people being angry at CDPR for "limiting their choices" during their playthroughs by greying out dialogue options(but leaving them visible).

 

[Draconifors]

This is an interesting topic, and one I'm torn on.

Witcher 3 always shows the Axii requirement dialogue options, and Thronebreaker also shows conditional dialogue options regardless of whether you meet the requirement (not sure if it's 100% of the time). Which I both do and don't like.

On one hand, I like knowing what I need (to do) to be able to explore additional dialogue, but on the other hand the completionist in me feels forced to make choices just to be able to explore additional dialogue. The latter has the more weight the more the conditional dialogue adds to the game.

I think a toggle would be a good option; all players can choose whichever option they want (and even switch on the fly?).

(Edited because I don't know what I was trying to say, but it didn't make any sense.)

 

[gogmeister777]

As always, a toggle would be nice; more options for players. Hopefully it wouldn't be too much work.

Would I use it? From a purist sense, I don't want to see what my character can't say. From a gaming point of view, it can be amusing/interesting to see what other characters have the choice of. It also helps when planning your second playthrough since you get more insight as to the style of other backgrounds.

I remember laughing at some of the Malkavian choices for VtM Bloodlines. It was funny to see them even though I couldn't choose them so it added to my enjoyment. It actually helped me decide to use Malkavian for my second playthrough.

I think I'd leave it on.