|
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.
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.
|
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
Thanks tynan
(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.
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 .
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.
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.
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