PDA

View Full Version : Yahtzee points out DX conversation system is C.R.A.P



El_Bel
16th Jun 2010, 19:36
Coming right after poop? Dont know what i was thinking.


Well anyway

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/1801-Alpha-Protocol

3.13 enjoy!

Deus ex Human Regeneration dialog system of course! The originals kicked ass.

Angel-A
16th Jun 2010, 19:49
Cool! That goes with the two other vids mentioning DX: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/4-BioShock and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/452-Guitar-Hero-World-Tour
There is suposedly another one where he talks about J.C., but no one has been able to find it.

Edit: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/624-Resident-Evil-5

Hertzila
16th Jun 2010, 19:50
Do you mean when he pointed out that Alpha Protocol's conversation system (and that minigame-esque thing in DX:HR) is bad or is there some point where he secretly complained in code speak about the original DX?

Great_Ragnarok
16th Jun 2010, 19:54
yeah the conversation system in the first game was pretty good.
It perfectly presented the way your character could be thinking.
This is because they actually had the dialogues printed out before hand.
but this is good because if you were in the character's situation, you'd think
before you speak. so it made sense.

where as the new system seems to give you simple choices which invoke
statements from your character that you weren't aware of beforehand.
(or that's how I understood one of the interviews on gamespot.)

hem dazon 90
16th Jun 2010, 20:08
I still prefer the new system

El_Bel
16th Jun 2010, 20:14
You are underaged. Your vote doesnt count.

Great_Ragnarok
16th Jun 2010, 20:16
@hem dazon 90
but don't you think that your character speaking things that you aren't
aware of, will ruin your level of immersion in the game?
In other words you yourself will be a stranger to what your character will say.

Ashpolt
16th Jun 2010, 20:19
El_Bel, you may want to change thread title to say DX:HR instead of just DX, it's somewhat misleading as is!

El_Bel
16th Jun 2010, 20:23
No he doesnt. You see, there is a reason that most governments dont let underage people humans vote. And that is because underage humans are foking retarded! Sometimes i believe that we let them vote too soon.


Oh and i cant change the topic title. Mods?

AaronJ
16th Jun 2010, 20:38
Cool! That goes with the two other vids mentioning DX: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/4-BioShock and http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/452-Guitar-Hero-World-Tour
There is suposedly another one where he talks about J.C., but no one has been able to find it.

Resident Evil 5

Angel-A
16th Jun 2010, 21:01
Resident Evil 5

Thank you. Very, very thank you.

pringlepower
16th Jun 2010, 21:37
does the yahtzee video make anyone else want there to be british people in de:hr

Kodaemon
16th Jun 2010, 21:42
That would be stonking great.

pringlepower
16th Jun 2010, 22:08
id love for adam to be called a bloody ponce. that yahtzee cracks me up

hem dazon 90
16th Jun 2010, 22:34
No he doesnt. You see, there is a reason that most governments dont let underage people humans vote. And that is because underage humans are foking retarded! Sometimes i believe that we let them vote too soon.


Oh and i cant change the topic title. Mods?

age has nothing to do with it.

AaronJ
16th Jun 2010, 22:58
I still prefer the new system

There's a new system? Somebody link me.

hem dazon 90
16th Jun 2010, 23:04
I mean the DX HR conversation system compared to the one in the first one.

boy_monday
16th Jun 2010, 23:07
A QuickFix to their awesome conversation mini-game concept:

instead of presenting the options of threaten, persist, or insist or whatever

just present the actual dialogue and color code it. Or put their little tags in bracket.

"Well mr. bartender, I came in here for two things: to kickass and chew bubble gum and I'm all out of bubblegum"
[Threaten]

"Tong's mother told me to tell him to wear a sweater so i need to find him and tell him that"
[motherly concern]

Don't we all have HDTV's anyways? text should e pretty easy to read on the screen. In the least this could be done for the PC guys.

MechBFP
16th Jun 2010, 23:31
I have to say that the original post is probably the most horrid hack job of a post I have seen in years.


Coming right after poop? Dont know what i was thinking.
Uhh..... okay....

El_Bel
16th Jun 2010, 23:39
Lets hear you sir coming up with something better. I did it in less then 10 seconds! Thanks anyway :D

Boy monday, that is an excellent idea. Too bad EM will not listen!

Laokin
17th Jun 2010, 00:07
Lets hear you sir coming up with something better. I did it in less then 10 seconds! Thanks anyway :D

Boy monday, that is an excellent idea. Too bad EM will not listen!

It's a terrible idea, and nothing original either... been done to death.

People keep saying it's AP's convo system, how about it's Mass Effects, and AP copied it? That was about the only good aspect of AP.

Furthermore you guys seem to fail to see the reason behind the change. It's redundant, reading the line selecting the line, then hearing the very same line.... I.E. most people are going to skip it because they read it already.

I personally always preferred this system. It's a throw back to point and click adventure games like Sam n Max. The original only had symbols which were expressions of attitude. Season one and Two from Tell Tale wrote the lines out, oops, suddenly they aren't funny anymore. Quickly switched back for season 3 to expressions and everyone loves it.

You might say it's a different game but the same principle applies. Reading the line before you click it spoils it.

As for immersion, how could anyone be immersed when you are scripted to say something anyway. DX you had no choice over what JC said, you just had a choice based upon an emotion such as aggression. You just got to read the entire line first.

The point is, the line doesn't matter, the context does. When you make choices on dialogue you are ultimately making the decision to be nice, angry, or indifferent, this was the same as DX 1. If you are a peacful person you aren't going to go with the aggressive option, what difference does it make if you know what hes going to say before hand or not, when ultimately it's not you speaking IRL.

I am not immersed when I read options of dialogue in DX 1, thats one aspect that will always break immersion because they never ever say what I would say, ask the questions I would ask.......

Guess what, It's a game after all. The people who want to read the text are most definitely the minority here.

I'm not underage, I'm 24, and certainly not unintelligent. It's the best it could ever be right now, as far as I'm concerned -- they made the right choice with the convo system.

AaronJ
17th Jun 2010, 00:22
It's redundant, reading the line selecting the line, then hearing the very same line...

I actually liked that in DX1 and 2. But I'd probably accept that anyway if I wasn't so sure HR's change isn't linked to simply hopping on a bandwagon.

Pinky_Powers
17th Jun 2010, 00:29
Desperate yammering.

I've been down this road with them already. Some folk just can't stomach the idea of not knowing the exact wording of what their character is about to say.

I've said in previous discussions that the Mass Effect system is my favorite because it's intuitive for me, and it saves me from myself. I'm the sort of bastard who fusses overlong with the dialog options, weighing and deciding exactly which line to choose. But the Bioware folk are a tribe of wise twerps, and they know that in the end, all those RPGs and their conversation systems boil down to just a reoccurring selection of emotions. And in the end, the exact wording isn't what the player is fretting over, its the notions behind those lines.

Human Revolution is going to have a base dialog system, and then a selective mini-game for certain characters. The mini-game is still a mystery in a lot of ways, though I do appreciate the ideas behind it. The base system is still completely un-talked about. I image this means it's more standard RPG fare and therefore not very notable.

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 00:41
@Laokin

Excellent post.

I, personally am all for the new conversation system. But I understand the possible lack of immersion.

The complaint in this threads video seems non-applicable to DX:HR's system. Cause it seems like the options will be words of intent in the form of verbs. I believe that will lead to less unintended remarks

But it really comes down to execution. I think reading the text before speaking it really IS analog to the real life act of thinking before speaking. And that IS immersive to me. But i can live without it. But that's probably because the immersion probably isn't part of why i love Deus Ex. On aother note about immersion, FPS's are visceral but the Field of view issues and lack of body awareness do negate the immersion for me. That's why I don't care about the third person view stuff. In my head I see the world in third person a lot anyways. In my head, I try to see my place within context of my surroundings. The third person cover system they got from raibow six vegas was smooth for me and didnt' ruin immersion. The take downs might. Maybe they should pull from the Riddick games for the human revolution sequel.

I'm trying to say that I understand some of the immersion comlaints and I believe you are right about them ruining the immersion for you but I think it might be more opinion than fact. I think their conversation model can still be immersive. Even if they fail I have a hunch that this technique can be made good.
I applaud Mass Effect for their attempted innovation. I think Bioware fell short of what the wanted to do. They kept the system secret for a while and they made it sound bigger than it was. I think DX:HR caught that and is trying to further reach for the innovation. EM are stressing on how complex the code is for those verbal combat sessions. Plus, I imagine the writer for them to have to be a master of social interplay and the subtleties of language. If the execution is good then I think our choices and the game world will be on the same page. If not, it will break immersion. The problem is it only takes a little to screw it up a lot. I applaud the risk because I think the success of the system is worth it. If not for this game, then the long run for this system to evolve.

Anywho, maybe we should start communicating/understanding with others in terms of intent rather than the actual words they use. Prioritize subtext instead of the actual form. I like prose. It has style. But for me I can immerse myself into being that character as long as my emotions are alligned. Their convo mini-game seems to have the potential for it. Mass Effect seems to have stopped innovating on their system. Despite future failures I think it should continue.

Dead-Eye
17th Jun 2010, 00:45
I'm not too clear on how the conversation system works ether. Although I did find it annoying when Shepherd would say something that I totally did not intend for him to say because the choice dialog was misleading to the actual dialog that he/she was going to say.

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 01:03
Sorry, I have to post again. I got myself all excited thinking about the conversation system.

I think the Eurogamer guy was awed at the facial animation.

This has the potential of really making the characters pop into life.

I personally am really bad with words, especially at the speed of conversation. But i know what people are feeling and what they want to hear.

If the writer gives a lot of love to these characters and sets us up in a good setting than I can imagine a real connection with the NPC's. The mini-game might require to have a theory of mind for them. A need to understand what they feel and think and read behind a particular stereotypes verbal mannerisms and get what they're really all about. Then manipulate the frak out of them.

Is that not a simulation in vein of deus ex? Spector said himself that any one thing in their game isn't that good it's that they shoved a bunch of stuff into it.

They took out multi tools and lockpicks. Now they have characters with needs you can interact with verbally/socially. It might suck but so did a lot of things in deus ex. I think the PC gamer guy was on to something that a core element to deus Ex was that all these systems came together deliberately or by accident in the way that every piece was a logic puzzle easy enough to execute yet hard enough to likely lead to (hilarious) failure. But also have a high enough density of options and interactivity of the many game systems that one could always form another plan out of the one that failed. In the very least SOMETHING ELSE could be done.

And someone else in this forum made a thread on 2 core values that I agree with.

No matter what they took out or put in or how crappy any specific implementation is...if they play test and keep the values alluded to, I think this will be a deus Ex game. If the game isn't broken, DXHR seems to be at least an 8 out of 10. Maybe not Deus Ex, but good.

Great_Ragnarok
17th Jun 2010, 03:35
It's a terrible idea, and nothing original either... been done to death.

People keep saying it's AP's convo system, how about it's Mass Effects, and AP copied it? That was about the only good aspect of AP.

Furthermore you guys seem to fail to see the reason behind the change. It's redundant, reading the line selecting the line, then hearing the very same line.... I.E. most people are going to skip it because they read it already.

I personally always preferred this system. It's a throw back to point and click adventure games like Sam n Max. The original only had symbols which were expressions of attitude. Season one and Two from Tell Tale wrote the lines out, oops, suddenly they aren't funny anymore. Quickly switched back for season 3 to expressions and everyone loves it.

You might say it's a different game but the same principle applies. Reading the line before you click it spoils it.

As for immersion, how could anyone be immersed when you are scripted to say something anyway. DX you had no choice over what JC said, you just had a choice based upon an emotion such as aggression. You just got to read the entire line first.

The point is, the line doesn't matter, the context does. When you make choices on dialogue you are ultimately making the decision to be nice, angry, or indifferent, this was the same as DX 1. If you are a peacful person you aren't going to go with the aggressive option, what difference does it make if you know what hes going to say before hand or not, when ultimately it's not you speaking IRL.

I am not immersed when I read options of dialogue in DX 1, thats one aspect that will always break immersion because they never ever say what I would say, ask the questions I would ask.......

Guess what, It's a game after all. The people who want to read the text are most definitely the minority here.

I'm not underage, I'm 24, and certainly not unintelligent. It's the best it could ever be right now, as far as I'm concerned -- they made the right choice with the convo system.

Dude your criticisms also apply to the new system as well which makes your criticism hopelessly redundant!!
You still don't get to say the exact thing you wanted in the new system, but it's worse, because
the new options are limited to just keywords!! When there are dialogues presented as options,
you at least get a feel for what your character says before he says it!

so which do you find more immersive considering that the end dialogue is scripted
for both systems?

(A)choosing a keyword and then listening to something unanticipated by the main character.
or
(B)choosing the exact dialogue you want your character to speak.

Think of it this way, when you normally talk do you think about what you are going to say
before you say it? or do you think of a theme like aggression, and then babble some random
sentences together to make it sound aggressive? surely we think before we speak,
therefore the old system is the more immersive feature.
if not immersive at the very least you got to decide the exact phrase for the character.

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 05:33
the new system may or may not suck by itself or as part of the game as a whole.

But i think it's interesting and daring in the least. A lot of coding and clever writing has to go behind it.


Plus I think it's more than "keywords."

It's intent or attitude.

So [threaten] will always be threatening

[insist] will always be pushy.

And this convo system is only for the persuasion mini-game. There's normal info gathering conversations as well. Those might be like mass effect or more like DX1. Noone knows yet.

IThey have more than one system. Not all conversations are mini-games.

El_Bel
17th Jun 2010, 13:24
"Your uncle betrayed you." said the enemy..

Angry
Insist
Whatever

The angry could mean that you are angry about your uncle betraying you and you could give a respons like "That smelly bastard, he will pay" or you are angry with the dude who told you "You are a filthy liar, my uncle would never do that. I will kill you" or decide to ignore that and continue angrily asking question "Maybe so, but if you dont tell me how to find the marshmallow i will stick this blade up you

dropthesky
17th Jun 2010, 16:37
emotions are not enough. They're just not enough...never have been.

super...
17th Jun 2010, 17:25
I have had plenty of times where reading a line of dialog was just as confusing as what yahtzee points out

For example the classic "i didn't say he took the money" place the emphasis on any word in that line and you get a totally different meaning

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe someone else said that?

"I didn't say he took the money"
reinforces the the statement as positive

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe he wrote it down?

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe someone else took it?

"I didn't say he took the money"
perhaps hid did something else to the money?

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe he took the papers, maybe the guns?

To be sure both methods can lead to confusion but why should I read a bunch of dialog when they are paying voice actors? (thats a rhetorical question, don't try to answer it, because every answer wrong)

I will tell you why it could really work out though. so long as the writing is made for this system it will work for most players. the writer can approach working on each scene like so.

Adam is talking to x, if x opens with this line "I'm a pessimistic forum member full of hate" I need to write Adam's insistent, aggressive, and passive response to that. so he writes those three responses. Given that each potential response was written specifically with a player's choice in mind your likely going to end up with responses that work for most players expectations. something that will avoid the "i didn't say he took the money" problem.

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 17:37
"Your uncle betrayed you." said the enemy..

Angry
Insist
Whatever

The angry could mean that you are angry about your uncle betraying you and you could give a respons like "That smelly bastard, he will pay" or you are angry with the dude who told you "You are a filthy liar, my uncle would never do that. I will kill you" or decide to ignore that and continue angrily asking question "Maybe so, but if you dont tell me how to find the marshmallow i will stick this blade up you

True True. understood.

I think the keywords are limited to strategies of persuasion rather than emotions which lend itself to less confusion. I think if the system is broken there will be many other things to complain about than what you said.

But as far as immersion goes I think if they make the breadth of the mini-game understandable and the rules coherent and coax out our suspension of disbelief....It'll be immersing enough in it's own new way.

To counter what you said I would mention that often even the displayed options don't offer anything I would have felt or said for my character. To support you it seems that this is obviously not as aggravitating as making a choice then having your choice be mangled by the bad game system. It sucks when someone doesn't understand you correctly. I don't want to spend money on a fun machine just so I can be insulted by it's stupid system either.

The system can work. I think for it to work it would need more than just one word. It might need it's own language or code. EM won't take it that far. What they will do might be more rewarding than immersion breaking. After that comes preference or bias

I'm pretty much done pondering their convo system until I see more of it.

dropthesky
17th Jun 2010, 17:46
I just don't understand why they would pounce on the hotflava convo system every ones using when there seems to be consensus that its one of the weaker parts of ME, AP. There's been enough time to study these existing systems and make changes to them for the better.

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 17:52
I have had plenty of times where reading a line of dialog was just as confusing as what yahtzee points out

For example the classic "i didn't say he took the money" place the emphasis on any word in that line and you get a totally different meaning

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe someone else said that?

"I didn't say he took the money"
reinforces the the statement as positive

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe he wrote it down?

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe someone else took it?

"I didn't say he took the money"
perhaps hid did something else to the money?

"I didn't say he took the money"
maybe he took the papers, maybe the guns?

To be sure both methods can lead to confusion but why should I read a bunch of dialog when they are paying voice actors? (thats a rhetorical question, don't try to answer it, because every answer wrong)

I will tell you why it could really work out though. so long as the writing is made for this system it will work for most players. the writer can approach working on each scene like so.

Adam is talking to x, if x opens with this line "I'm a pessimistic forum member full of hate" I need to write Adam's insistent, aggressive, and passive response to that. so he writes those three responses. Given that each potential response was written specifically with a player's choice in mind your likely going to end up with responses that work for most players expectations. something that will avoid the "i didn't say he took the money" problem.

Yes, I've found this bug to be more aggravating than any of the keyword misinterpretations of mass effect.

I mean honestly. If you ever tried to recall a verbal exchange but couldn't remember the exchange verbatim, I'm sure you distilled the exchange to a bunch of cartoony representations and summarized the lines. Maybe even stating the subtext because you couldn't remember the line accurately to convey them. Which reminds me of the aliens from mass effect.

Instead of [angry] there could be a verb or tactic like [rebuke]
or [sarcastic agreement]

[play dumb]
[angry disbelief](in reference to the poster who gave the "angry uncle" scenarios.

There are more ways to respond to a statement than any game has given options for.
If the writer is good and we get the context of the conversation then we should understand what these key words mean and would not have our choices mangled.

Yes all this trouble could be avoided by writing out the lines.

BUt it's true I do have a preferences to having conversations happen at a more fluid pace. and have an issue with reading spoken lines breaking the immersion for me(sometimes)

I'm also interested in the potential of the social mini-game.

Poison_Berrie
17th Jun 2010, 19:23
"Your uncle betrayed you." said the enemy..

Angry
Insist
Whatever

The angry could mean that you are angry about your uncle betraying you and you could give a respons like "That smelly bastard, he will pay" or you are angry with the dude who told you "You are a filthy liar, my uncle would never do that. I will kill you" or decide to ignore that and continue angrily asking question "Maybe so, but if you dont tell me how to find the marshmallow i will stick this blade up you
I get your point, but that's more faulty execution than a faulty system.

In general it holds true that the conversation options you get are always a few different tactics.
Let's say you are asked whether you saw a thief run by, you can a)tell the truth b) be evasive c) lie.
Why than must the full sentence be written out for you to decide which one to take if the options are made clear in a few words.

This is off course the crux. It is imperative that the option clearly represents the attached dialogue. But see the quote by boy_monday for more on that.



Which reminds me of the aliens from mass effect.

Instead of [angry] there could be a verb or tactic like [rebuke]
or [sarcastic agreement]
[play dumb]
[angry disbelief](in reference to the poster who gave the "angry uncle" scenarios.

There are more ways to respond to a statement than any game has given options for.
If the writer is good and we get the context of the conversation then we should understand what these key words mean and would not have our choices mangled.

Verbs or tactics are both often more clear than emotions, and I certainly hope that the way it's been told by journalist so far is more of a crude analogy than the full truth.
Also you aren't restricted by the size of the dialogue selection screen, if you are using keywords/tactics.

mad_red
17th Jun 2010, 22:31
Rationality anyone? If you take away the sentences, every single conversation is purely an emotional affair. You can't make rational choices for Adam anymore - Adam does all the thinking for you!

Say I don't want to threaten or bribe an NPC, but simply want to reason with him. Heck, I don't even want to reason with him and 'win'. I just want to talk, like with all the bartenders in Hong Kong.

How can I even hold a casual conversation? If the guy says "what do you think about China being the only remaining liberal nation in the world", how would I know what kind of reasoning Adam will produce? It's random for all practical purposes. If I knew anything about economics and politics, that's now irrelevant because I can only give a terse and ambiguous, or in the worst case merely an emotional reply.

I'm all for being able to choose how you feel and how act in a conversation, but without full sentences to choose from, the whole of "choices have consequences" becomes meaningless as far as intelligent conversation is concerned. Sounds like some kind of soap opera to me.

PS: Will you pick cello's or computers (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=904622&postcount=39)?

pringlepower
17th Jun 2010, 23:09
Rationality anyone? If you take away the sentences, every single conversation is purely an emotional affair. You can't make rational choices for Adam anymore - Adam does all the thinking for you!

Say I don't want to threaten or bribe an NPC, but simply want to reason with him. Heck, I don't even want to reason with him and 'win'. I just want to talk, like with all the bartenders in Hong Kong.

How can I even hold a casual conversation? If the guy says "what do you think about China being the only remaining liberal nation in the world", how would I know what kind of reasoning Adam will produce? It's random for all practical purposes. If I knew anything about economics and politics, that's now irrelevant because I can only give a terse and ambiguous, or in the worst case merely an emotional reply.

I'm all for being able to choose how you feel and how act in a conversation, but without full sentences to choose from, the whole of "choices have consequences" becomes meaningless as far as intelligent conversation is concerned. Sounds like some kind of soap opera to me.

PS: Will you pick cello's or computers (http://forums.eidosgames.com/showpost.php?p=904622&postcount=39)?

Yeah like JC never did the rational thinking for me. Leo Gold goes on about how the trilateral commission is another part of government control, and while I'm thinking "hmm he's got a point" on goes JC with "it's a think tank blah blah blah, government is super fantabulously awesome yeah!". except montonously.

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 23:16
I agree totally! All of it except your final conclusion. For the convo with the bartender it seems The choices are of what to convey and how to convey which have consequences.. Plus, i don't think DXHR is doing the emotion-keyword thing.

The convo with the bouncer is no different than what they did in Deus Ex. JC didnt always say exactly what was written and sometimes they just listed an action in brackets.

A note about a conversation distilling down to emotion without rationality. Most decisions and persuasions in real life are based on appeals. Usually to pride or values. Valuing rationality can be a thing. An interview from the writer(from pc gamer i think) hints that you have to read faces and body language to understand what the npc values and how they respond to the emotions/actions you're conveying. It seems in the convo-battle system(not all convos are mini-games) the message is the same but how you convey it is the gamers choice.

Although having an option that may resemble [appeal to rationality] would be lame and take the fun out of reasoning with a character. But EM seems to be aiming for a face/body language game and not a reasoning mini-game. Oblivion attempted such a thing and failed miserably

I like their mini-game ambitions. But my personal preference would be to have a whole sentence which wouldn't interfere with the mini-game too much. But definitely wouldn't give a care if they just abbreviated it down to a few words. But it seems a lot do care. Eidos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Great_Ragnarok
17th Jun 2010, 23:20
@ Super...

Dude did you consider the fact that, you become a stranger to your own characters' dialogue in the new system?
In a conversations do you suddenly become utterly surprised by something you just said?
No right? Most likely you knew what you were going to say most the time.
The new system breaks this flow which breaks immersion in a conversation.
To clarify,I think immersion in a game is the feeling of interaction.
The feeling that you are in control of the outcomes. This is why it is important
to see the possible dialogues, because you will know what to expect when you pick that choice.

Also your criticisms are a little dishonest. You used an example of doubt
as a source of confusion, to criticize the old convo system.


"didn't say he took the money"
maybe someone else said that?

In otherwords a single dialogue can't get rid of all the possible doubts for a gamer.
(can this even happen in real life? is there such thing as a doubtless statement?)
and then when you argue towards the new system, you ignored your criticism for
the old system, and made an argument in regards to something trivial
and easy to understand like aggression.



Adam is talking to x, if x opens with this line "I'm a pessimistic forum member full of hate"
I need to write Adam's insistent, aggressive, and passive response to that.
so he writes those three responses.

Remember conversations remain scripted even in the new game!
When that is the case the old convo system is the best because,
you know exactly which dialogue your character will say.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
anyway here's an example from the first game.
script thanks to Luke Kowalski's faq in gamesfaq.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/pc/250533-deus-ex/faqs/51057


convo between JC and Paul Dention

PAUL DENTON
The NSF took one of our agents hostage. The bots are holding the perimeter, but
my orders are to hold back and send you in alone. I think someone high up wants
to see how you handle the situation.

JC DENTON
All I've got with me is a pistol and an electric prod. I don't mind a test, but
UNATCO better issue some hardware.

PAUL DENTON
Remember that we're police. Stick with the prod. It will stun your opponents or
knock them unconscious. A nonlethal takedown is always the most silent way to
eliminate resistance. Just in case, though, Manderley wants you to pick an
additional weapon: a sniper rifle, a GEP gun, or a minicrossbow.

Gamers choice and resulting conversation for JC Dentons dialouge.
-1-
JC DENTON
I like to pick 'em off from a distance. I'll take the rifle.

PAUL DENTON
This isn't a training exercise, JC. Your targets will be human beings. Keep that
in mind.

JC DENTON
I get up the idea. What's the first move?

-2-
JC DENTON
Never know when I might come up against heavy armor. Give me the GEP gun.

PAUL DENTON
The GEP gun might be useful. They have a security bot on patrol near the Statue
entrance.

JC DENTON
Great. What's the first move?

-3-
JC DENTON
The crossbow. Sometimes you've got to make a silent takedown.

PAUL DENTON
Good thinking. With these tranquilizer darts, you'll have another nonlethal way
to take down an enemy in addition to the prod.

JC DENTON
I get the idea. What's the first move?


now is there something wrong with the above? Those three options remain
the only scripted dialogues available to the player.Keywords can't change the script!
So Could someone explain why it would be better to replace those options with 3 keywords?
I've shared a link for the full script, so feel free to pick other examples if it
helps you argue towards the new system.

Also if the old system has flaws then why not simply modify/correct it?
why throw away the old system all together?
like "boy monday" posted earlier, you could have the keyword and the dialogue as choices.



"Well mr. bartender, I came in here for two things: to kickass and chew bubble gum and I'm all out of bubblegum"
[Threaten]


This way you have the keyword and it's scripted consequences displayed for the gamer.
There's no confusion. this all said, we still don't have exact info on the new system.
maybe it has other complexities that would make for a better experience.

Blade_hunter
17th Jun 2010, 23:31
Don't worry the next quote will be "I will hurt your skinny ass, with violence!" :lol:

boy_monday
17th Jun 2010, 23:39
Say I don't want to threaten or bribe an NPC, but simply want to reason with him. Heck, I don't even want to reason with him and 'win'. I just want to talk, like with all the bartenders in Hong Kong.

How can I even hold a casual conversation? If the guy says "what do you think about China being the only remaining liberal nation in the world", how would I know what kind of reasoning Adam will produce? It's random for all practical purposes. If I knew anything about economics and politics, that's now irrelevant because I can only give a terse and ambiguous, or in the worst case merely an emotional reply.


they say you can talk to all npc's. i have a feeling this will mostly be standard rpg fare. The kind of convos that build the setting and themes and give you some useful information perhaps.

Unfortunately not a lot has been said for philosophical/academic discussions. That was part of the flair of deus ex. Even Mass Effect has them. They may or may not exist.

I also understand that if one does know something about the intellectual topic at hand it'd be hella immersive and cool to choose the rational statement to engage them into a feux discussion.

They will want to put their new mini-game all over the place. Hopefully, they realize that it's just honest fun to have conversations and discussions with NPC;sand not every interaction should be a game of manipulation. Full sentences are required for that flavor of immersion.

I don't really care either way. But it is a big part of the fun for a lot of players of RPG's and adventure games.

FrankCSIS
18th Jun 2010, 00:29
My only fear, based on nothing else than fear itself, is to be confronted with a mini game where I have to decide which eomotion to use and convey based on the emotions portrayed by the character I'm interacting with. In other words, I'm very affraid of a "must-win" convo system where you guess what the character wants and then use his own emotions against him to interract and win every damn conversation. This would get old so very, very quick.

Used in key moments, sporadically, and most importantly, with a good dose of subtlety, then I'll not only live with it, but I'll probably enjoy it.

boy_monday
18th Jun 2010, 04:22
yeah mini games should be judiciously used like fine china. Otherwise they suck ass. I'm looking at you Bioshock and Mass Effect 2

Pinky_Powers
18th Jun 2010, 04:40
My only fear, based on nothing else than fear itself, is to be confronted with a mini game where I have to decide which eomotion to use and convey based on the emotions portrayed by the character I'm interacting with. In other words, I'm very affraid of a "must-win" convo system where you guess what the character wants and then use his own emotions against him to interract and win every damn conversation. This would get old so very, very quick.

Used in key moments, sporadically, and most importantly, with a good dose of subtlety, then I'll not only live with it, but I'll probably enjoy it.

It's been confirmed multiple times now that the mini-game verbal combat-thing is only for specific characters that have something of importance you need; information, cigarettes, throat lozenge. It won't be for every conversation, or even for every multiple-choice conversation.

And you won't be required to do this mini-game anyway. You can either find another way toward your goal, or even mentally force the character with your mind-control Aug... if you've got it.

mad_red
18th Jun 2010, 15:34
Lol, yeah sorry guys. It's not emo-convo's only? That's a relief. I just got a bit nervous there, reacting emotionally to some of the good vibes here when I should have been reading more carefully and been more reasonable. It's not working out for me so I should probably stick to a violence-only approach next time :D

Although... not all the conversations are minigames, which I like.... but even so, when I want something from an NPC, it would be nice to be able to reason with him or her now and then (in addition to the psychological minigame if necessary). Using different kinds of reasoning could even lead to different consequences in the game, also in the long-term. That's a fine addition to any convo, in-game or irl!

We'll see where this ends up I guess.

PenguinsFriend
18th Jun 2010, 15:54
Lol, yeah sorry guys. It's not emo-convo's only? That's a relief. I just got a bit nervous there, reacting emotionally to some of the good vibes here when I should have been reading more carefully and been more reasonable. It's not working out for me so I should probably stick to a violence-only approach next time :D

Although... not all the conversations are minigames, which I like.... but even so, when I want something from an NPC, it would be nice to be able to reason with him or her now and then (in addition to the psychological minigame if necessary). Using different kinds of reasoning could even lead to different consequences in the game, also in the long-term. That's a fine addition to any convo, in-game or irl!

We'll see where this ends up I guess.

Maybe they could "borrow" from Oblivion persuassion (/sp) model? Still show different the dialouge options, you click on them and watch the reaction (only after you have elected to use the option though, we shouldn't be able to see how they will respond until after we have used it), and then you know that threats won't work so you move to reasoning - well, you get the idea.