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 [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
 
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 5 of 5
 

Another method of character interaction in games involves the use of minigames to simulate certain aspects of conversation. In The Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion and Nancy Drew: The Deadly Secret of Olde World Park, the player plays a minigame to improve the NPC's disposition, but any dialogue produced during the minigame consists of stock phrases that simply serve as feedback to the player's performance rather than giving any insight into the character.

These minigames do affect the course of conversation, however, by giving the NPC new responses to topics or opening up new avenues depending on the result of the minigame.

Advertisement

In contrast, the minigames in Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude take place during a conversation, and dynamically affect its course. If the player makes a mistake in the minigame, his avatar says something inappropriate that upsets the NPC, whereas if the player continually performs well, Larry (the player character) impresses the NPC, improving their relationship.

Of course, playing a minigame makes it difficult for the player to pay full attention to the dialogue in this case, and makes the ultimate result (pass or fail) relatively transparent.

Time Scheduling

While not a method of direct NPC interaction, Time Scheduling systems are relevant to this article both due to their importance in games centered around character interaction, such as Tokimeki Memorial, and because of the way they provide context and relevance to NPC interactions.

In most games, the player chooses when and if to interact with NPCs, but some games build the entire framework of their game around managing time spent with different characters. Typically, these games take place over a defined period of time, during which the player chooses their activities. For example, in a given day, the player may choose to go to work at the office in the morning, and spend time in the library building their academic skills in the afternoon.

These decisions are important because of the limited time scale. Usually, developing relationships plays a pivotal role in these games. After initially meeting or learning about an NPC, the player has the option to spend time with them.

Each time the player chooses to visit an NPC, their relationship progresses. Often these encounters play out with Branching Dialogue, giving the player an opportunity to deepen their relationship with the NPC further.

The character interaction activities usually culminate in some ultimate point in the relationship where the scripted sequences run out and the player is considered to have "completed" the relationship, as in the RPG title, Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3, or dialogue begins to repeat at the maximum disposition, such as in the American-developed dating sim, Brooktown High.


Atlus' Shin Megami Tensei: Persona 3

Time Scheduling is effective in engaging a player with an NPC because the act of repeatedly choosing the characters to spend time with creates intrinsic value to the interactions. In the player's mind, if they chose to interact with a given character, it must be because the character is interesting. The player sees value in the interaction before it even starts.

The downside of this method is that it requires a large number of NPCs to choose from in order for the player's choice to be relevant, so developers must create NPCs and dialogues that the player does not necessarily encounter during the course of the game.

Often scripted sequences play out the same regardless of how much game time has passed between them, so it can be strange for an NPC to refer to an event that may have happened months ago (the last time the player chose to interact with them) as if it were just yesterday, exposing the limits of interactivity.

Conclusion

Considering the potential market for games that play like interactive television dramas or sitcoms, it is likely only a matter of time until the Western games industry hits upon a recipe for a wildly successful game based almost entirely around character interactions.


Microsoft/BioWare's Mass Effect

Games like Mass Effect and Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic have proven that there is definitely an interest in extensive NPC interaction gameplay, and the surprise success of the Phoenix Wright series has shown that gamers are even ready for the visual novel.

By taking cues from past techniques, NPC relationships in the games of tomorrow have the opportunity to be deeper and more immersive than ever before.

---

ELIZA screenshot courtesy of Wikipedia.

 
Article Start Previous Page 5 of 5
 
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