What is "consolisation" and why does it exist? Or Simulated Skill v Player Skill

faetal on 11/2/2011 at 16:23

Quote Posted by Thirith

..[if] developers had replaced the Suave/Aggressive/Professional choices with the actual lines, practically everything you say would still have been true. You'd have had the minimal complexity of analysing pretty obvious phrases, but ask almost any gamer to attach the attitudinal labels to the statements that followed, and only the braindead wouldn't have got it right 99.9% of the time.

I'm not sure the dialogue options would have been as limited to being obvious without the "three categories" design decision. Also, with the choices the player has to make being one of the three, then there is no point making the dialogue contain undertones or be subtle in any way, because its execution is after the player decision has been made. I am saying that without the restriction of x categories, be it three, five or custom each time, then the dialogue options can be designed more cleverly. Also, seeing the options before the choice is made opens up a lot of room for the developers to play little tricks on the player, or allow for double bluffs and various other conversational nuances.

Thirith on 11/2/2011 at 16:35

That I agree on, even if I think that way too many RPGs of the last 10 years have pretty much stuck to an almost equally rigid categorisation: the conversations are far and few between where the responses don't boil down to 1) Be a dick, 2) Be a saint, 3) Be neutral (...where's Zapp Brannigan when you need him?) and 4) BRB. Even with a game as hardcore CRPG as Baldur's Gate 2 (a game I love), there is a strong tendency towards that sort of laziness.

Koki on 11/2/2011 at 17:42

Quote Posted by Thirith

as hardcore CRPG as Baldur's Gate 2

:tsktsk:

Thirith on 11/2/2011 at 18:02

We can also go back to games such as Wizardry, Bard's Tale, Dungeon Master etc., but other than the first of these I don't think there's anything particularly hardcore about them.

faetal on 11/2/2011 at 19:32

Hooray, we agree :D

My worry is that the category approach validates and laminates such laziness. Before, game designers were in charge of how obvious the dialogue options were. If categories becomes the default "what players expect" system, then the choice becomes mooted.

Sulphur on 11/2/2011 at 22:38

Uh, great semantics discussion, guys? Sorry. I haven't quite parsed everything in the last page yet. But from what I understand of the argument, it's mostly subjective and based on personal preference. I, for instance, am all for either reading tone from sentences and choosing them that way, or alternatively just choosing a specific tonal approach a la AP if it works for the game.

However, there is one problem with the AP style of things: when choosing a tonal category if the response that follows doesn't gel with your idea of the character, it breaks immersion/mimesis (to use that term the way the IF community does). Like people complained with AP that the 'suave' route just makes Thorton seem like a sexist jerk and not actually suave.

That aside, what I won't be able to abide is having both together, if that's what faetal means DE: HR's system is like. As in, [HOSTILE] "I'm going to rip your motherfucking spine out and shove it right back up your candy ass." That'd be really god-damn patronising I do think.

faetal on 11/2/2011 at 22:44

Patronising is certainly one of the first things which sprang to my mind, yes.
I sort of understand the AP system in terms of brevity and being fast-paced, though I think it is limiting to have 3 styles of response and for there to be no way of knowing the exact tone of what will come out, but it kind of insults the intelligence to have the dialogue line there AND be told what kind of response it is. I have a feeling that this kind of hand-holding is to become more and more commonplace as franchises attempt to please as many people as possible.

Bakerman on 12/2/2011 at 00:30

I don't mind the concession of replying with a category instead of an actual line. It's a more direct link between my intention and the character's actions. When I'm in a game and following a conversation, I know how I want to respond, and it doesn't help immersion for me at all to then have to go through the lines and find which of them aligns with my intention.

Out of curiosity, what did people think of ME2's interrupt button? I think it's in a similar vein in terms of expressing player intention; it's a way for players to instantly tell the game 'I've had enough of you talking', and that intention is conveyed in an appropriate way.

Bluegrime on 12/2/2011 at 03:59

I personally like the "a/b/c" response rather then picking out individual lines to use. It makes replaying the conversation in the next round feel less tedious, for me at least. Getting to read every possible response from your character beforehand (even if you never have any intention of being good/evil/whatever) takes some of the mystique out of playing through again differently. I like being periodically surprised and not already knowing what my options are verbatim, it makes the dialogues feel much fresher when I don't know what the NPC or the PC will say line for line.

Not knocking the older "pick your lines" dialogue or anything, I just think the new one isn't bad.

Phatose on 12/2/2011 at 05:08

Knowing all your options is an entirely separate issue from the interface. About the time KotOR came out and the full voice acting became an expectation for PC style RPGs, the branching dialogue tree became the not-actually-branching dialogue pole. Saving money on voice acting - it's blatant in KotOR if you remember all your options when you choose one. Very carefully crafted so they can all use the same response, or perhaps a varying lead-in with the same longer response body.

Really, you shouldn't know all your options the second time around, cause you shouldn't have even seen most of the branches if you're doing things differently. But budgets are limited and voice acting and mastering ain't cheap.