Contents
Defining Dialogue Systems
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Video Game Watchdog National Institute On Media And The Family Shutting Down [11]
 
Modern Warfare 2 Infinity Ward's 'Most Successful PC Version' Yet [12]
 
New Tech, Design Details Of Project Natal To Emerge At Gamefest In February
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Lead World Designer
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
arrow Upping The Craft: Susan O'Connor On Games Writing [6]
 
arrow Small Developers: Minimizing Risks in Large Productions - Part II [6]
 
arrow iPhone Piracy: The Inside Story [48]
 
arrow And Yet It Grows: Analyzing the Size and Growth of the European Game Market [5]
 
arrow NPD: Behind the Numbers, October 2009 [13]
 
arrow Reflecting On Uncharted 2: How They Did It [5]
 
arrow Sponsored Feature: Rasterization on Larrabee -- Adaptive Rasterization Helps Boost Efficiency
 
arrow Postmortem: Wadjet Eye's The Blackwell Convergence [2]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
November 22, 2009
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [1]
 
Designing Games Is About Matching Personalities [1]
spacer
About
spacer News Director:
Leigh Alexander
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Editor At Large:
Chris Remo
Advertising:
John 'Malik' Watson
Recruitment/Education:
Gina Gross
 
Features
  Defining Dialogue Systems
by Brent Ellison
10 comments
Share RSS
 
 
July 8, 2008 Article Start Previous Page 2 of 5 Next
 

An interesting variation in branching dialogue, found in the game Culpa Innata, sees the player choosing one of several tactics at the beginning of the conversation. For example, while interviewing a potential witness in a crime, the player chooses to use either a formal, casual, or accusatory manner.

This decision affects the tone of the conversation, the options, and, ultimately, the information gleaned from the interviewee. Some tacts are more successful than others, and the player cannot immediately go back and try a different method. In order to approach the conversation differently, the player must come back another day.

Advertisement

The interface used by the player in branching dialogue varies significantly from game to game. The most obvious method is to present the player's possible responses word-for-word as his or her avatar would say them. The player has an infinite amount of time from which to make his decision, and the NPC gives his or her reaction as soon as the player makes his choice.

This is the case with most dating simulations and many western RPGs like Planescape: Torment. There is no ambiguity in the player's decision, but reading all the possible responses takes time and brings conversation flow to a halt.

While this is not necessarily a problem in games featuring dialogue presented entirely in text, modern games typically present all dialogue with full voice acting. As a result, the menu navigation and long pauses while the player chooses their next response can negatively impact immersion.

Games have attempted to address this issue by presenting responses in a different manner, or controlling the speed at which the player responds. In some cases, designers choose to present full responses alongside symbols or text that quickly sum up the general gist of the response.

An example of this technique can be seen in Desperate Housewives: The Game (Liquid Entertainment 2006). The game presents the player's options as a series of stylized faces depicting various emotions associated with the response, such as happy, sad, or angry. When the player moves their mouse over one of the faces, the full response appears in a text bubble for the player to read if they wish.

If the player knows they want to respond to a particular comment in a negative manner, they can quickly filter out the responses they do not want and just read the angry choices, thereby reducing the load on the player and speeding up dialogue to a more natural level.

One game notable for its aspirations for cinematic-quality dialogue scenes is Indigo Prophecy, which eliminates full responses entirely. The player sees his choices pared down to their essence, such as "Lie", "Avoid the question", or "Ask about murder weapon."

Once the player decides, his avatar delivers the full line related to the player's choice. In addition, the player has only a limited time in which to make a decision after the NPC finishes speaking. If the player fails to make a decision in that time, the game chooses a response for them, in a deliberate attempt to keep the conversation moving at a more natural pace.


Quantic Dream/Atari's Indigo Prophecy

The recent Mass Effect makes similar attempts at simplifying the presentation of the player's choices, but rather than limit the player's response time, it gives the player his options before the NPC finishes speaking. In this manner, the player makes his decision and the avatar delivers a response with little to no pause in the conversation.

Thus, both Indigo Prophecy and Mass Effect attempt to make conversations more natural by reducing the amount of time and effort the player spends considering their next response.

Although the heavily scripted nature of branching dialogue allows designers and writers to craft natural, flowing conversations, the limited nature of interactivity is very transparent to the player.

It is easy for players to see that they are simply choosing from paths laid out for them, rather than creating their own story. Further, players may be frustrated that they must follow such a straightforward path and cannot choose to inquire about certain topics. The Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue method addresses some of these problems.

 
Article Start Previous Page 2 of 5 Next
 
Comments

Tynan Sylvester
profile image
I spent several fulltime months creating a game with a unique 'dialogue' system you might be interested in. It's actually an earnest attempt to make a dynamic tactical game about picking up chicks in bars.

I had to abstract out the actual words and focus on emotions. The main problem with this system is that it doesn't read well because it is so abstract.

The game is called The Player League. You play as a guy in an underground league of bar players.

Here's the download and links to my design articles about it:

http://tynansylvester.com/?p=267

Fernando Angelico
profile image
Thanks , im gonna read those articles.
Thanks tynan

Lorenzo Wang
profile image
This article reminds me of a really interesting Turing test that noted cognitive academic Douglas Hofstadter as involved in:
(skip down to Post Scriptum)
http://www.cse.unr.edu/~sushil/class/ai/papers/coffeehouse.html

I think the true Turing test will be the day a computer can pass one. In that sense, I would love to see how AI would play Facade.

Mike Rozak
profile image
I've been playing with NPC dialogues for awhile and discovered the following:

1) There's no "grand unified theory"; humans (and hence NPCs) are too complex. The author really needs a toolkit of branching narratives, queries, and more free-form NPC responses (maleable branching narratives). Players need a menu of the most common options, but the ability to type (or speak) a more complex query, such as: "Where does CHARACTER live?"

2) The designer needs to always ask him/herself, "Why am I giving this choice to the player?" See http://www.mxac.com.au/drt/Choices3.htm .

My in-progress game, that uses a lot of dialogue, is at http://www.CircumReality.com .

Stephen Dinehart
profile image
This is a nice exploration, most of the terms you are looking for have already been established in narratology. As much as I like to make up terms it's helpful to use standard terms sometimes. Interactive dialog is still in it’s infancy. Bioware is without question the leader in interactive RPG dialog system design, but due to the fact that they rest on established conventions borrowed from times past. Like the rest of us they seem to be caught in a iterative design process, making small steps in innovation.

Anonymous
profile image
The article certainly did an adequate job describing the different types of dialogue systems out their pros and cons, but I would have liked to have seen a bit more insight into what kinds of games the author feels these systems are best suited to, what the future is of some of the more fledgling models (and even the established ones as well), etc.

Personally, I think Mass Effect represents the best implementation of an RPG dialogue system. It allows the player to get as much information as they want from any given NPC, and provides many unique paths during critical moments based upon the player's attitude. It's certainly not without its faults, however. Limiting the options to a sort of three-tiered Nice/Ambivalent/Jackass model gives just about any player an option they would have chosen themselves (albeit more eloquently put for most people I'd wager). There's a lot of overlap between the options, however, leading to a lot of false decision making. Limiting information concerning what the player's avatar will actually say to a two to three word summary also creates problems, as the player will soon discover that their avatar will often say something they hadn't intended them to say.

Jens Andersson
profile image
I'm also hugely interested in this area and some time ago I did an prototype of a dialogue-system that tries to do things differently. It turned out pretty well, so feel free to check it out at www.collectingsmiles.com/rorschach

Anonymous
profile image
Re: Anon

I think dialogue systems have gone as far as they can go, at least as far as basic mechanics go. At this point, any given dialogue is as open or as closed as the designer wants it to be - a general, ambiguous response can allow as much interpretation as many very specific responses. However, supplementary systems, overall presentation, as well as more responsiveness can add greater weight to a conversation in much the same way as the myriad of subsystems have made combat a very complex thing (but without really changing how things actually work). Purely a thought and not necessarily a practical system, but tracking what movements a player does before picking a response could allow a designer to pick out additional 'flavors' of any given response (ie a player that flips back and forth between choices before picking could be understood as verbally hesitant while someone who does nothing before picking as thoughtful and introspective while someone that picks a choice but then waits as cautiously spoken) or a system that reads a player's button presses and responses to that (a player tapping a button continually is impatient, a player that presses a button hard is giving more 'oomph' to the statement they select). Making conversations more than talking heads (even Mass Effect does this) can give conversations more of a realistic feel even if they aren't realistic themselves - allowing players or showing players their character's moving while talking (walking down a hall or merely waving their hands and doing something other than ignoring the game world while taking) would give more immersion to dialogue. As conversation (and personality) are very intangible and even two very different people can say the same thing, blending dialogue and action (and character action) can give more weigh which I think is the real current limitation. In the real world, how often do you talk as you do in RPGs - that is, stopping everything you are doing, facing each other, and talking without any other action. Probably very little - more likely, you are talking within context of another action.

John Mawhorter
profile image
You mention non-branching dialogue only briefly when it is one of the most used mechanics for dialogue in certain genres. While I get that your focus is on gameplay and dynamic dialog systems, a non-branching dialogue can also have a gameplay element. Choosing who to talk to, when to talk to them, and at what time is a factor in many games, even those with branching dialogue that let you make choices in conversation. In this context I feel you shouldn't ignore non-branching dialogue as non-interactive. The interaction is starting the dialogue.

Mark Zartler
profile image
Excellent article.

I've always been curious as to what Machine Learning could accomplish here. Is there a ML community at work in games? Dialoging and user driven actions seem ripe for this, but then again, it may be another application where there never enough data.

Anyone using statistical methods?

Mark Zartler
Annosoft


none
 
Comment:
 


Submit Comment