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
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Environment Artist
 
Trion Redwood City
Sr. Evnironment Modeler
 
Sucker Punch Productions
3D Environment Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Network Programmer
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Texture Artist
 
Sucker Punch Productions
Character Artist
 
Crystal Dynamics
Sr. Level Designer
 
Monolith Productions
Sr. Software Engineer, Engine - Monolith Productions - #113767
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 [1]
 
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 4 of 5 Next
 

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.

Advertisement

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.

 
Article Start Previous Page 4 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