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
Texture Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Sony Online Entertainment
Brand Manager
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Gargantuan Studios
Technical Art Director
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 [7]
 
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
 
Time Fcuk
 
Accepting the Inherent Value of Games
 
Planckogenesis, Part II: Song Structure & Gravy Train [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 3 of 5 Next
 

Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue

Though ultimately a variation of the previous method, Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue creates a very different conversation flow compared to basic Branching Dialogue. The player listens to the NPC's lines and then chooses their response from the main "hub" of the conversation.

After hearing the NPC's response, the player either returns to the main hub, from which they can ask the same question again or inquire about another topic, or enters a deeper hub with more options to choose from.

Advertisement

The player can typically always find their way back to any hub by navigating through their responses, and thus can explore the dialogue in any order they wish. In this manner, a player can exhaust a conversation by trying every possible option at their disposal (with no penalty), and the interaction only ends when the player chooses the "goodbye" option.

Most conversations in Mass Effect and other BioWare titles take this form, with occasional basic Branching Dialogue implemented when the player has to make an important decision that may affect quest outcomes or the NPC's disposition towards the player.

Hub-and-Spokes Dialogue gives the player more freedom and control over conversation and often allows them to interrogate NPCs to find out every last piece of information about them. However, this method of dialogue tends to create conversations strongly divorced from reality.

The NPC usually has infinite patience for the player's strange inquisitions, and every dialogue plays out like an interrogation as the player keeps pressing the NPC for info. Furthermore, the player hears a lot of the same lines over and over as he navigates between hubs, potentially breaking immersion.

Parser-Driven Dialogues

While the original conversation simulator, ELIZA, used a text parser to get player input, this method is relatively rare today. Some experimental titles like Façade, however, still explore its possibilities.

In a parser-driven dialogue, players type their exact response and the system attempts to parse the input in a way it can understand. The NPC then replies with one of a number of pre-set responses, or builds a response based around the words used by the player in combination with pre-set phrases. In many cases, the player directly controls the flow of conversation, veering wildly off-topic whenever they wish without eliciting much surprise from the NPC.

Façade's design, however, always attempts to keep the player on track. In this game, the player plays an active part in dealing with marital troubles as a third-party helping a couple work through their problems.

Although input from the player comes from a text parser, Façade tries to keep conversations as natural as possible by choosing a response based on not only the player's immediate input, but also their behavior thus far and the current state of the dialogue.


Procedural Arts' Façade

In Façade, the conversation always moves forward, despite the player's best attempts to change subjects, as the NPCs always try to return to the subject at hand. The conversation can go many different ways, and a message after the game ends encourages the player to replay the game many times.

Parser-Driven Dialogues are rare in modern games for two reasons. The first is that the freedom they provide is extremely time-consuming to produce. The system needs hundreds of potential responses to accurately simulate a single, short conversation.

The second reason is that even the most robust parsers frequently misinterpret the player's input. In Façade, an innocent inquiry can send the NPCs into shock, horrified by what they thought the player just said. These misunderstandings ruin virtual relationships and frustrate the player, while at the same time exposing the program's failings and distracting the user from the interaction.

 
Article Start Previous Page 3 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