Systemic
Interactions
Some games do not feature full conversation systems, but
merely simple means for interacting with characters that pass by. Often,
interacting with NPCs in this way is part of the same gameplay used for
exploration, combat, etc. The game does not change into "conversation mode"
when it comes to NPC interaction.
In many cases, the player chooses a gesture or attitude to
take when initiating interaction with an NPC. The NPC responds briefly, and
sometimes the player has the opportunity to choose another gesture or attitude.
Often, the player rarely has more than two interactions with a given NPC in one of
these encounters, which are typically carried out for the purpose of an
immediate reward, such as a health boost, like in Bully or a temporary bodyguard, such as in Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
It is possible for these interactions to have meaning over
the long term, however. In Fable,
romances are handled by this same sort of system.
The player builds up their
relationship with a potential partner by returning to them again and again over
the course of the game, choosing the appropriate gestures and giving gifts.
Eventually the player reaches the point where he can propose to the NPC, at
which point the NPC sometimes gives gifts to the player.
The transparent nature of Systemic Interactions is the most
obvious problem with this method, since the player receives constant reminders
of the exact nature and purpose of his interactions, making immersion difficult
to achieve.
Another common issue seen in games using this method,
though not necessarily inherent to the system, is that NPCs, even the romantic
interests in Fable, typically have no
real character. Interactions with them are superficial not only due to the
nature of the interaction, but because there is nothing to learn about them.
None of the characters have unique responses; every NPC with the same character
model has the same voice and dialogue. Bully
has several unique characters that express their personality through their
responses, but interactions remain shallow.
The implementation of Systemic Interactions in a game is
usually made in order to allow the player to deal with a great many NPCs, so
making those interactions meaningful is a difficult challenge. The Sims is an example of a system
similar to this type that has had great success in this area.
Other Systems
Some NPC interaction gameplay is unique, or difficult to categorize. The Sims is a notable example as the
best-selling PC game of all time. While The
Sims' basic interactions are very similar to Systemic Interactions, the
context is significantly different due to the way the player has control over
multiple characters and can control both sides of a relationship.
In The Sims, the
player chooses which character to control, and then issues simple commands like
"compliment," "brag," or "flirt."
Characters in the
game speak nonsensical gibberish, however, so their dialogue reflects only their
mood or their emotional response to the topic and the character they converse
with; it conveys no other information to the player.
However, using a fictional language avoids the issue seen
in many games where the player must endure countless repetition of the same few
lines of dialogue.
While the player eventually comes to recognize repeated
snippets of gibberish, their nonsensical nature makes them much more palatable.
Conversations in The
Sims serve to improve or worsen relationships between characters, with new
options opening up on either end of the social spectrum. The Sims also has a more organic form of the Time Scheduling system
(described in the next section), as relationships with other Sims worsen when
the player ignores them, and the player must determine how they want their
player to spend their time.
There are no scripted relationship arcs in The Sims, so the player has complete
control over their development and outcome. In this manner, the developers save
hundreds of man-hours in writing dialogue while still engaging players with the
characters.
The popularity of The Sims
and the emotional attachment some players develop may indicate that the freedom
of the game leads to engagement, but players tend to make these attachments to
characters under their direct control, and therefore these characters are not
necessarily NPCs.
|
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