Weekly Poll 7/29/2019 - Dialogue About Dialogue

[Draconifors]

It's Monday in this part of the world, and so it is time for a new poll. Dialogue is the topic, to expand on the dialogue precision poll from last year. This poll was inspired by various recent discussions and some of the options reflect that. Others are just things I thought could be important to players.

You can pick up to three options.

(Don't worry, I'm not taking over these polls; I'm just a guest host. )

All Weekly Polls listed here.

 

[laramshe]

So, 1, 3, and 6. Why?

1. Timed dialogue choices are fine, as long they're not just some mediocre bar that decreases, or a flat out countdown. I like it when NPC's give hints for such time limits, with reactions like: "Are you deft, I asked you a question?" ... "Hey, I am still waiting!" ... "Alright, last chance. -puts gun on players head- Answer me, NOW!!"
Time limits should also be reasonably long, so that the player can read and comprehend the given options, since they're not always obvious. I remember from Telltales Walking Dead, that they often had too much dialogue options, with too long descriptions and too less time to read and comprehend them all. And I am a reasonably fast reader.

3. I kinda don't know why this is a problem. In all games I played so far, quest related options were either highlighted in some form, or were phrased quite obviously as quest related options. But, it's very possible that I just haven't played a game where this isn't the case, so I'm in favor for highlighting such dialogue options.
Really annoying are dialogues that offer X number of generic questions, but only allow the player to ask one due to the dialogue progressing forward. It often leaves me: "Hey, I want to ask the other stuff too... unfair!"

6. Displaying dialogue options of which we don't match the requirements is just plain simply annoying as hell. It gives me always the feeling, to miss out on something. Especially if such a locked option seems like the better option then the one that is possible, leaving me with the sore taste of: "Damn, maybe I could have solved that better..."
I rather prefer to be oblivious of such options.

 

[CyberBrett]

I voted for 5 and 7

5 Subtitles are important , maybe the house is noisy and i miss something I liked the way things were in TW3 .

7 I do want to see what i have missed out on saying . It will help with a second / third what ever play thru , giving me ideas for other options .

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

1, 4, 6.

 

[Tree_Fox]

3,5,7

Unimportant dialogue gives you background information of the game. Sometimes I just want to know a little more info, and dont want the conversation to move forward just yet.

I want to see subtitles when characters talk to me. I dont want to see the words over a characters head when they're doing idle chatter. Its off-putting.

I want to see all options, even if I dont have the reqs to meet them. I can make a note of it, and in future playthroughs, meta-game my way to see what that dialogue is. Cant do that if i dont know what it is.

 

[Mybrokenenglish]

1 = but only when it makes sense: imminent danger and alike, not "let's have a drink" vs "let's play snowball" (I'm replaying TW3 in this very moment).

3 = because it's annoying otherwise (confirmed in CP already)

6 = extremely important for immersion, at least give us a toggle.

And give us the possibility to make subtitles bigger, when you play on your couch 2-3 meters away from the tv sometimes is not easy to read.

 

[Shavod]

I picked 1, 3 and 6.

Timed dialogue choices (when used by developers considerably) can really benefit the atmosphere during the conversation, making you feel more on edge whenever you approach some potentially dangerous individual. Instead of just sitting down and relaxing while the conversation plays out, you need to actually be prepared that at any moment something might go really wrong and you need to react fast. They get annoying when used all the time (like in Alpha Protocol), but used from time to time they do increase the immersion.

I picked option number 3, because honestly I just didn't like the way dialogue options were displayed in the older RPGs, often creating a confusing clutter of choices that only superficially expanded the dialogue tree. Making distinction between important and less important choices makes the dialogue tree less cluttered and thus much more clear to me.

For number 6 my reasoning is that it serves as a bit of a spoiler to have options display the responses that your character can't even say. It's much more exciting when you stumble on those choices on your own by having a proper skill level. I understand that the purpose of it is to encourage the player to play the game again by showing him other possibilities, but in that case I think at least the text should be "censored" in some way and show only skill requirement.

 

[CyberBobber]

9, Why not to do it like in Witcher3? Its just me but I dont see this as a big matter. Dialogues were big thing like 10 year back but now companies have found their own style etc.

 

[Rawls]

Yeah 1, 3, 6 have to be my votes too. I liked timed dialogue in small doses a lot. I don't love option three as a design because it feels a bit hand-holdy, but not having it is more annoying ... so hand holding is okay sometimes I guess. Six we should have the options visible that are available to the character.

 

[KakitaTatsumaru]

2, 3 and 7.

2 because we have to consider things in video games that we don't IRL and that takes quite some times:
-IRL we don't have to read and understand our answers first.
-IRL we don't have to pick our answers from a limited selection.
-IRL we don't have to think what answer is corresponding to the roleplay we decided for V.
-And the biggest of all: most of the time IRL there is no missed dialogue opportunity (outside of "skill check") and you can come back on a topic whenever you want, when it's something I don't remember ever seeing in a RPG.

3 because of what I just wrote: most of the time IRL there is no missed dialogue opportunity (outside of "skill check") and you can come back on a topic whenever you want.

7 because the dev logic may not be the same as yours so it helps the player understand the dev vision of what the player can do with what, and because it can motivate the player to do another run of the game thus extending replayability.
For example you wants to play someone intimidating and put all your points in COOL for that reason, then discover because of grayed dialogue that the devs thinks that STRENGTH is the way to go for intimidation, so you'll be able to correct that problem early instead of playing the whole game with a character which doesn't follow what you wanted to create.

 

[Bellator Pius Gratus]

Certain choices in conversations should be timed, and others not. I do want to take time, knowing what I say or ask won't end the conversation just because an NPC is bored with me. Then again, I don't figure Meredith Stout being patient enough to stand around for an hour with a gun to my head.
Regarding seeing or not seeing possible options might be a player choice perhaps?

 

[fridgeband]

My extremely lengthy, detailed, and in depth opinions on this exact subject, and my logic and reasons as to why I think the way that I do, and why I feel that timers should be an optional setting so that players who want them can have them, and those who do not want them can completely avoid them for the entire game without missing out on any dialogue.

• 2. I don't want timed dialogue choices. Thorough consideration is key!
• 3. "Unimportant" dialogue options that don't progress a quest should be visually distinguishable.
• 5. Subtitles should have separate settings for dialogue and generic chatter (like in Witcher 3).

https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11621260
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11621356
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11621374
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11622382
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11622514
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11624014
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11624083
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11624227
https://forums.cdprojektred.com/ind...tional-in-the-settings.11010124/post-11625190

 

[EngryEngineer]

1, 6, & sort of 3.

1. I don't mind that a lot of games do the pause style dialogue, but I love the idea of the conversation being a live scene and if I don't respond they'll keep going with it.

6. I think not showing locked options improves replayability, I would much rather discover how the game is different when I play as a different character rather than having it spoiled on my first go through.

3. I kind of want the opposite of showing "unimportant" dialogue options. I'm the sort of player who wants to hit every dialogue option that I can so it would be good to know which options are going to progress the convo, eliminating previous options. I felt like playing through the Witcher I kept having situations that sounded like a simple probe for more info/unimportant option, but it just shut down the whole scene. I don't mind if with every prompt I only get one choice (which makes a lot of sense with 1), but either make it consistent or show when a choice will progress it.

 

[Mawnark]

2, 3, 7. I want the convos to feel flexible with several, clear choices. I agree with Kakita's reasoning. The timed dialogues should be an option. I don't want skill checks to be hidden because that means a lot of trial and error with the skill points. However, The Witcher had hidden dialogues that I approve of since the requirements were to do quests in a different order or to find an item early. This is convenient and your effort is recognized. I'm fine with hiding dialogue choices when the requirement is to make a decision on a prior quest, for example.

 

[AlexiaRevan]

Voted 7 .

Don't like Timed ANYTHING! even dialogue...

I also don't mind seeing hidden dialogue either

As for dialogue being tie to skill, it depand if it well made or not . Either way, shouldn't be a bother to me .

The only thing I made a request for after watching that 48min demo, was to change the dialogue text . (it was red on yellow piss background) . And my other requests are : 1) Don't make it too small plz and 2) make it clear what X dialogue mean .

 

[kofeiiniturpa]

Timed dialog is a good tool in the right context. It just needs to make sure that the player can indeed keep track of what’s going on, and that failing at it doesn’t trap the player inside an overly inconvenient situation.

I loved it in Fallout 2 that if I wasn’t fast enough and choose the right line, after Miria’s dad caught me humping her, a shotgun wedding ensued that forced upon me arguably the lousiest companion in the game that could only be gotten rid off via divorce in a city much later in the game or by killing her or selling her to slavery. On the plus side you can also pimp her out in Reno.
It was a fun little quirk.

 

[BabalKabak]

2, 3 and 7.

2 because we have to consider things in video games that we don't IRL and that takes quite some times:
-IRL we don't have to read and understand our answers first.
-IRL we don't have to pick our answers from a limited selection.
-IRL we don't have to think what answer is corresponding to the roleplay we decided for V.
-And the biggest of all: most of the time IRL there is no missed dialogue opportunity (outside of "skill check") and you can come back on a topic whenever you want, when it's something I don't remember ever seeing in a RPG.

3 because of what I just wrote: most of the time IRL there is no missed dialogue opportunity (outside of "skill check") and you can come back on a topic whenever you want.

7 because the dev logic may not be the same as yours so it helps the player understand the dev vision of what the player can do with what, and because it can motivate the player to do another run of the game thus extending replayability.
For example you wants to play someone intimidating and put all your points in COOL for that reason, then discover because of grayed dialogue that the devs thinks that STRENGTH is the way to go for intimidation, so you'll be able to correct that problem early instead of playing the whole game with a character which doesn't follow what you wanted to create.

How comes that I never filled that poll ? Anyway...

I share the same points with KakitaTatsumaru, even though I checked 2 and 6. The reason is, the point of dialogue in games often display "contextual" choices, that means limited choices that engages the player in a narrative branch and using specific requirements (like having X level in X stat). The logic behind the dialogue requirement is up to the devs, and next the player has to understand that logic to be able to mind the game in order to make the choice that suits the roleplay. I'm not saying that not all dialogue choices has to come in a predictable pattern (I like surprises !) but let's say, if I could see 3 dialogue options + 2 "grey" options that only highlight the requirements (STAT, money, item, etc... without showing further info so the content of the answer isn't spoiled), that would be great.

Also, I would like that in NG+ my previous dialogue choices be marked so I know instantly what other options I have left.

And last (another approach on dialogues), I could be able to "try" some dialogue options without knowing if I have enough levels (ex: trying to intimidate someone with 2 in my STAT but maybe it works, maybe not ?). That would be interesting and result in some funny fail moments.

 

[LordSerion]

3, 5 and 7. 3 and 5 are basically the same and W3 did it great. I want 7 like it was in New Vegas, it was cool to see how many other approaches are possible.

 

[Bondaebu]

for me, 4, 6, 8.

4. If you can distinguish sort of the things, it is spoiler. In Witcher, I was surprised Ciri's fate is determined by my very subtle, little actions. and those were undistinguishable. I really enjoyed it.

6. same as 4. It's spoiler, and break immersion.

8. I want to roleplay as I am, not as a character determined by some programming codes or numbers. when I chose threatening dialogue, then NPC should react naturally whether my threaten was successful or not according to intention of writer, not react awkwardly like desperately try to say that 'your threaten skill is low so I react like this!!'

I mean, if my threat failed cause my skill was low, It break immersion immediately. because the situation is not accepted naturally. instead, some thought occur like 'damn, I should have invested in Threat.' this is called immersion breaking. at least for me.

Now I sense some old rpg fans think like "What!? How is this immersion breaking!?".. many RPG were developed for intention for mimicking P&P RPG. but I think It's outdated design. of course some limitation based on stat could be good for gameplay wise. for example opening door by strength, or fixing the gadget by your engineering skill or etc.. but in dialogue, and social wise, It also could be immersion breaking feature.

If I should persuade some NPC for story progress, It should be designed naturally. the situation that I can persuade a person immediately because my character has high social skill is very unnatural. you should persuade the NPC through *YOUR* own wit, or real toil. not just by character's stats. and Witcher 3 accomplished it very well. for example If you want to know where the Dijkstra's treasure is, *YOU* should act really carefully. there are not options immediate passing skills like persuading. If you did something dumb just one, then you couldn't find the treasure forever. It's really on pins and needles experience. by the way, instead, if you could persuade him to tell where the Dijkstra's treasure is by simply choosing [Persuade him (Speech 50)], would have it been fun? Absolutely not.

To conclude, in dialogue, It shouldn't be limited by skills especially social skills (threaten, persuading, speech, seduction, whatnot). I think some technical skills like engineering or hacking is okay though.