Bioware's next gen akshun gaem

[ichpokhudezh]

If English isn't your first language, then fair enough, but you might consider that your notion of the meaning of a word might not be exactly correct.
If English is your first language, it'd be nice to see you try to understand it.
...
Here the set of possible outcomes is { 3.67291, 0.345683, -1.40556, 5633097.2363 }. The player knows that this is the set of possible outcomes, since they are all precisely specified by the options menu. Picking any one of these options has complete precision, since there is no ambiguity whatever in the selection: the choice dictates the outcome to any arbitrary degree of precision (given that the outcome is known to be chosen from the set given by the menu).
...
What I mean is abundantly obvious to anyone with sense anyway. Whatever your misguided notion of precision, even you should be able to see that there is something that "3.6451" gives you that "three and a bit" does not.

Galsia, you delude yourself and your understanding of what precision means appears to be flawed.
In both your exaples the outcomes are [1,2,3,4] and those outcomes are exact. Labels attached to your choices do not matter. Further, 3.6451 does not give any more detail intrinsically than "three and then some" (if you wonder about this one, try to refresh on units of measure and scale). As to the roleplaying value of "a little over 3" versus "3.14" - it might help but then again it might not. It all depends on the context.

 

[sabishii]

If English isn't your first language, then fair enough, but you might consider that your notion of the meaning of a word might not be exactly correct.
If English is your first language, it'd be nice to see you try to understand it.
...
Here the set of possible outcomes is { 3.67291, 0.345683, -1.40556, 5633097.2363 }. The player knows that this is the set of possible outcomes, since they are all precisely specified by the options menu. Picking any one of these options has complete precision, since there is no ambiguity whatever in the selection: the choice dictates the outcome to any arbitrary degree of precision (given that the outcome is known to be chosen from the set given by the menu).
...
What I mean is abundantly obvious to anyone with sense anyway. Whatever your misguided notion of precision, even you should be able to see that there is something that "3.6451" gives you that "three and a bit" does not.

Galsia, you delude yourself and your understanding of what precision means appears to be flawed.
In both your exaples the outcomes are [1,2,3,4] and those outcomes are exact. Labels attached to your choices do not matter. Further, 3.6451 does not give any more detail intrinsically than "three and then some" (if you wonder about this one, try to refresh on units of measure and scale). As to the roleplaying value of "a little over 3" versus "3.14" - it might help but then again it might not. It all depends on the context.

It does help when put in the context of real dialogue in a game. I want to know/determine exactly what my character is saying rather than what I want him to say. Does this change the whole choice/consequence? Not at all, but it affects the character's definition - his/her perceived personality and beliefs.

Say you have created a character that is suave. In a less-defined dialogue system like ME's, you may be presented with a dialogue option to "be suave." You pick that option, but then what comes out of your character's mouth doesn't match what you think is suave. Now on the other hand, when you have *precise* control of your character's dialogue, instead of playing a guessing game, you'll know whatever your character's going to say. Suppose that the writing is the same, that you are presented with the same "suave" option with the same writing. You'll see now, before you pick a dialogue option, that the "suave" option is not something your character would say, and you pick another option instead. No guessing game.

Earlier this situation was compared to having a socially inept PnP player playing a Bard, so that having precise dialogue was impossible. The thing is, that doesn't apply here. In a CRPG, this player doesn't have to actually come up with the words autonomously; the choices of phrasing are listed in front of him so all he needs is reading skills to determine which one bests suits his character.

Dialogue isn't just about picking the intent. It also involves figuring out how to execute the intent. When you want to go up to someone and think, "I'm going to be suave," do the words come out of you without any voluntary mental process on your own part? It isn't only the intent of the character that defines the character, but also the words that the character uses. Take that control away from the player, and you're taking away part of the roleplaying.

 

[galsiah]

Good lord. When will the madness end?

The precise situation is this:
Choice: 3.67291 -> Outcome: 3.67291
Choice: 0.345683 -> Outcome: 0.345683
Choice: -1.40556 -> Outcome: -1.40556
Choice: 5633097.2363 -> Outcome: 5633097.2363

This is a direct, unambiguous, one-to-one mapping between choice of option, and direct outcome of that choice. This is what a standard dialogue option gives you. The player knows precisely the outcome he'll get (i.e. what his character will say) when he picks the option. Within the set of possible outcomes (simply the four options in this case), he has precise, unambiguous control. [EDIT: the point would be the same if the numbers were e.g. { 1, 100, 3, 5 }, but I was paralleling a detailed dialogue option, so using many significant figures seemed reasonable]


The imprecise situation is this:
Choice: About 4 -> Outcome: anything quite close to 4
Choice: A small number -> Outcome: anything small
Choice: A negative number -> Outcome: anything negative
Choice: A big number -> Outcome: anything big

This is a one-to-many relationship affording the player no precise control over the outcome. Choosing "about 4", might give 3.1, 4.5, or 4.03 etc. - the player has no idea when he picks the option. The other choices are even less specific. Within the set of possible outcomes (any number, as far as the player knows), the player has no precise control.


Picking "about 4" gives you no control over whether you'll get 3.5 or 4.5
Similarly picking "threaten" gives you no control over whether you get e.g.:
[agitated] Go down that road and you can forget about any aid from us.
[level] Perhaps you might reconsider. I'd hate to see a trusted friend meet with an accident.
*lean forward* [menacing] Give us what we want, or your children will pay in blood.
*put gun to NPC's head* [forceful] Give us trouble and you die where you stand.
*turn puce and uncontrollably spray spittle* [scream] PLANE TICKETS BITCH!!!!

Unless the player character is extremely tightly defined from the outset, it'd be pretty inappropriate to have any one of the above options result from a generic choice. If the player is in the role of the central character, it's just unhelpful not to know exactly what he's signing up for when he picks an option - it treats the player character's personality as something completely defined by game stats, and unchanging, rather than evolved by the choices the player makes.
If he's assuming some control over an NPC henchman with a pre-defined personality, that's different.

 

[ichpokhudezh]

I want to know/determine exactly what my character is saying rather than what I want him to say. Does this change the whole choice/consequence? Not at all, but it affects the character's definition - his/her perceived personality and beliefs.

Say you have created a character that is suave. In a less-defined dialogue system like ME's, you may be presented with a dialogue option to "be suave." You pick that option, but then what comes out of your character's mouth doesn't match what you think is suave. Now on the other hand, when you have *precise* control of your character's dialogue, instead of playing a guessing game, you'll know whatever your character's going to say. Suppose that the writing is the same, that you are presented with the same "suave" option with the same writing. You'll see now, before you pick a dialogue option, that the "suave" option is not something your character would say, and you pick another option instead. No guessing game.

I do agree and there's no argument per se but please consider that most of the current RPG genre tries to have a resemblance of a strong storyline and some element of surprise/twist/whatever you call it. IMO, the less "precise" option would give the develpers better means to achieve more "dramatic" effect.
Also, there is something else to be done with picking an option rather then result: suppose you're playing your suave sleazeball and pick the "suave" option in the dialog but your char fails a check and blurts out "your feet stink!".

 

[ichpokhudezh]

The imprecise situation is this:
Choice: About 4 -> Outcome: anything quite close to 4

Are you referring to any specific game with this example? Or is this a straw man?

 

[galsiah]

IMO, the less "precise" option would give the develpers better means to achieve more "dramatic" effect.

I'm sure it would. So would making a film - or an adventure game. If they want to do those things they should feel free to do so.
Making an RPG, but taking away control over the player character is just a contradiction in terms. Can you imagine a p&p game played that way? It'd be laughable.

Also, there is something else to be done with picking an option rather then result: suppose you're playing your suave sleazeball and pick the "suave" option in the dialog but your char fails a check and blurts out "your feet stink!".

How is that practical? To get anything approaching an interesting result, you'd need hundreds of dialogue results for most situations, and hundreds of character traits. Without that you're just left with a few "Your feet stink" type outcomes, which will either rarely get used (being appropriate for very few characters), or get used when they aren't appropriate.
I don't see that making a great game.

Clearly it'd be interesting if it were practical to do well. However, it's precisely because the writers will only have time to create perhaps five to ten options, that the player needs to see them before making a decision. If there were hundreds of well-considered, nuanced replies tailored to particular characters with particular track records, then you'd have a case - but there won't be.

 

[galsiah]

Are you referring to any specific game with this example? Or is this a straw man?

Originally it was a response to serch's idiocy. It's a parallel using numbers, since I thought (perhaps misguidedly in view of recent responses) that numbers would illustrate the need for precision more effectively.
If you don't like the numeric example, use the "threaten" options later in that post.

The point I was specifically that:
(1) Precision exists in standard dialogue menus.
(2) This precision is lost when the character makes up the exact response based on a generic player choice.
(3) This loss of precision is important.

Sadly, serch decided to miss the point on (1), so I was trying to make that clear. Anyone sane should see that it's obvious, but that's too much to ask for some.

You need to view my post in the context of responding to the idiocy of a stranger to logic and good sense. In that light, it's somewhat reasonable (e.g. introducing numbers is an attempt at clarification through simplification - not one that worked, but you can't have everything).

 

[cutterjohn]

Man, I never realized how much of a bitch for Bioware that Volourn is. That alone should've earned him his dumbfuck.

BTW Volourn, when you get around to finishing up sucking BW off, you'll notice that my quote IS from a BW employee, which is even better than your FAQ as this is fresh news v. some fantasy that they put out a couple years or so ago.

Not to mention, the whole roleplaying thing because of the dialog choices is blown, as you ONLY have dialog choices. There is no free form adventure type response line. I'd also tend to belive that most of those choices have little real meaning, as happened in BW's other games, and more recently with NWN2. You always end up at the same piece text no matter which options you choose, then again we won't have much text to READ, as their target audience is illiterate as evidenced by their crowing about not having to READ.

It's a shooter.

BTW: Notice how that when Volourn gets excited his spelling and grammar drop to a little bit lower of a level than the average ESF fanboy. Coincidence? No reading in Mass Effect? hmmm... Actually now that I think of it, a better name for this game might be Chilling Effect: The Loss of Literacy

 

[Volourn]

iIt's an Action RPG. BIO has been stating that since the beginning including talking about the recent video demo. Read the fuckin' FAQ. And, don't be such a moron. The FAQ is not put together a few years ago. It's updated all the time, and it's full of BIO quotes. Dumbass.

 

[HardCode]

iIt's an Action RPG. BIO has been stating that since the beginning including talking about the recent video demo. Read the fuckin' FAQ. And, don't be such a moron. The FAQ is not put together a few years ago. It's updated all the time, and it's full of BIO quotes. Dumbass.

ur alwayz rong.

 

[Texas Red]

BTW: Notice how that when Volourn gets excited his spelling and grammar drop to a little bit lower of a level than the average ESF fanboy. Coincidence? No reading in Mass Effect? hmmm... Actually now that I think of it, a better name for this game might be Chilling Effect: The Loss of Literacy

Well, I wouldnt say to a level of an average ESFer. However, i did notice that his grammar does drop on occasion. His space sare all wron gand s uch.

 

[OverrideB1]

iIt's an Action RPG.

In other words, it's an action game (hence the primary location of "Action" in your description) with some RPG elements (hence the anterior location of RPG in your description). This is nothing new: both MW and Oblivion are action games with some RPG elements -- very few people here would call them RPG-heavy games.

It's a damn' good job you're relying on an independant, unbiased FAQ for your facts isn't it? Oh, wait...

 

[Volourn]

"In other words, it's an action game (hence the primary location of "Action" in your description) with some RPG elements (hence the anterior location of RPG in your description)."

Nope. It's a rpg with action. The main focus is on he role-playing first. This is according to BIO, and since they are the ones making the game; I believe them not you. RPG Action just doesn't sound right at all. That's just sounds retarded.

Unbias? Are you claiming you are unbias?

I don't give a damn what people ehre claim. People here claim that G3's combat isn't a click fest. Not exactly awe inspiring honesty.R00fles!


"Well, I wouldnt say to a level of an average ESFer. However, i did notice that his grammar does drop on occasion. His space sare all wron gand s uch."

Mostly because I'm typing way too fast for my own good, and I don't bother to proof read as for the most part internet geeks aren't work it. LOL

 

[sabishii]

My view, again: We don't know if it's going to be an Action game with some RPG elements or an RPG with action. We have no evidence of roleplaying besides that little dialogue scene, which isn't conclusive about it at all. Yes, they claim to intend to make an RPG, but I don't judge intents and we all know how smart believing 100% into a claim is. Not that I think Bioware is at all as untrustworthy as Bethesda, but still... Can't say anything until more actual evidence is uncovered.

One of the main reasons I'm skeptical is because I assume they'd put more of their RPG workforce onto Dragon Age rather than Mass Effect. The latter seems more of an experiment, plus that they need to focus on having a good shooter design. Again, of course, this is only assumption... Volourn, can you tell me if I'm wrong?

 

[Volourn]

"One of the main reasons I'm skeptical is because I assume they'd put more of their RPG workforce onto Dragon Age rather than Mass Effect. The latter seems more of an experiment, plus that they need to focus on having a good shooter design. Again, of course, this is only assumption... Volourn, can you tell me if I'm wrong?"

1. The ME team is the same team that basically made KOTOR.

2. I believe that it have role-playing just like other BIO RPGs. If you like BIO's other role-playing games for their roleplaying (like most her eon the Codex don't so its moot); you'll likely be fine with ME role-playing. Otherwise.

3. It's a BIO (Action) RPG. I expect exactly that. I don't expect a FO style game.

Factual evidence has been uncovered. Stats effect the game, the players has numerous choices on how to interact in the world, multiple solutions to quests, yoru actions effect what otehrs characetrs do upt o and including them opposing you, etc., etc.

GHame over.

 

[bylam]

Hay Volurn I am a lazy fucker and hence couldn't be bothered to read the FAQ. Do they say anything about multiple endings and how it will affect the start of the next game in the series? (You all know it is the first part of a trilogy right?)

 

[Harbadakus-]

Hay Volurn I am a lazy fucker and hence couldn't be bothered to read the FAQ. Do they say anything about multiple endings and how it will affect the start of the next game in the series? (You all know it is the first part of a trilogy right?)

I assume it won't have multiple endings.

From the FAQ-

Is the story going to be linear? How much freedom will we have?

Bob McCabe: There is, of course, a well-developed story that the player will go through. And there will be choices along the way, just like Neverwinter Nights and Knights of the Old Republic.

The goal is, as always, to provide some freedom, but really, we want to tell a good story that people can get immersed into - and allow those players to affect the story in their own way, as much as we can.

But, even better, there are going to be locations to discover that aren't directly tied in with the story; these will allow you a diversion of sorts, when appropriate. Imagine picking up a strange signal from a nearby planet that was thought to be devoid of life.

Personally, I think it may end up playing out something *like* Grand Theft Auto or maybe Baldur's Gate, and what I mean by that is that when you're on a plot you'll be focused on that. But between plots, you can either jump right back to the next part of the story or wander around for a while and see what you can find.

 

[serch]

The thing is that IMO most people don't have such a good control of what they actually say. There are a lot of factors you must consider like... 1 the idea you want to express 2 your ability to support stressful conditions 3 natural capabilities for oratory 4 learned techniques of oratory 5 you must word a thought to perfect it 6 unpredictable circumstances and the such . So between what you wish to express and what you finally say, there can be a a life or death difference. Such a distance isn't showed in today CRPGs, so, basically, you will find that two characters saying the same things in equal circumstances will get different results. I find this unnatural. Then you have this options that only appears when one of your skills is high enough, but I don't like this solution neither.

Ie

Originally it was a response to serch's idiocy

Ie

You need to view my post in the context of responding to the idiocy of a stranger to logic and good sense

I am sure that Galsiah would love to say these things, face to face, to me. We can pretty much agree that, given the chance, he would't be able out of pure terror.

 

[OverrideB1]

Nope. It's a rpg with action. The main focus is on he role-playing first. This is according to BIO, and since they are the ones making the game; I believe them not you. RPG Action just doesn't sound right at all. That's just sounds retarded.

Almost as retarded as believing everything you read?

Look, the RPG label sells games -- it's a status thing, a way of saying "look at me, I am sooo damn smart that I can play RPGs. S.M.R.A.T. I tells ye". That's why every developer and his maiden aunt slaps an RPG label on every fragging game they make.

Then there's your source material. "According to BIO" you say. Well, I remember another company that was going to make teh ultimatest RPG game. "Trust us" they said, "you're gonna love it." On release it had about as many RPG qualities as your standard FPS. THEY issued FAQs, full of loving detail about how RPG the game was going to be, 99% of which turned out to be total bullshit of the most sublime sort.

"Ahhh," you say, "but BIO aren't that company." That's as maybe, but -- just like that company, they're all mouth and no trousers. In other words: They're certainly talking the talk, but it remains to be seen whether the end product walks the walk. And it'll take rather more than a carefully selected clip, out of context to the rest of the game, to convince this cynical old bastard

 

[Volourn]

"Look, the RPG label sells games"

That must expalin why RPGs are considered a niche product. Why do people like you state such obvious fuckin' stupid things. Outside of games like FF; the genre is a niche product and even FF isn't relaly all that mainstream either.


" you say, "but BIO aren't that company." That's as maybe, but -- just like that company, they're all mouth and no trousers. In other words: They're certainly talking the talk, but it remains to be seen whether the end product walks the walk. And it'll take rather more than a carefully selected clip, out of context to the rest of the game, to convince this cynical old bastard"

Judge a company by their actiosn; not anotehr company's. If you dislike BIO just say so and don't buy tbeir games. It's that simple. But the silly 'x comapny did this' so that means 'y company will do it too' is plain retarded.


Harb: Your assumption is not based on fact. I could just as safely assume it will have multiple endings since TOB, most of BIO's games have had multiple endings with the only excpetions being NWN1 OC and SOU. KOTOR, JE, and HOTU have all had multiple endings, Though, admittedly, teh fact that ME is alreayds et up for a trilogy makes tricky; but still, the fatc BIO is aware of this makes it more likely they'll be able to accomplish this.

In fact, to put these assumptions to rest, I'll simply ask this q on the BIO baords. Hopefully, they'll answer. Heh.

 

[galsiah]

The thing is that IMO most people don't have such a good control of what they actually say. There are a lot of factors you must consider like... 1 the idea you want to express 2 your ability to support stressful conditions 3 natural capabilities for oratory 4 learned techniques of oratory 5 you must word a thought to perfect it 6 unpredictable circumstances and the such . So between what you wish to express and what you finally say, there can be a a life or death difference. Such a distance isn't showed in today CRPGs, so, basically, you will find that two characters saying the same things in equal circumstances will get different results. I find this unnatural. Then you have this options that only appears when one of your skills is high enough, but I don't like this solution neither.

Ok - you're making a reasonable point here.
However, how would you ever have enough prewritten responses to make such a system work well? If you have something like five to ten possible character replies, which result from a few more generic (but not necessarily that generic) player choices, how can you come close to covering all character types/traits?

To get a system which felt right - i.e. where the final responses always felt appropriate (if not what you wanted) for any character you were playing - you'd need far too many pre-written responses. You'd also need a pretty complex character generation setup (though there's nothing wrong with that).
I can't see how you'd ever get enough different dialogue responses written to pull this off. I don't see it working without many responses unless you heavily restrict the types of character the player can play (e.g. I could see this working well for something like Hitman - but it's not an RPG of course).

I am sure that Galsiah would love to say these things, face to face, to me. We can pretty much agree that, given the chance, he would't be able out of pure terror.

*selects threaten* -> <s>Go down that road and you can forget about any aid from us.</s>
*selects threaten* -> <s>Perhaps you might reconsider. I'd hate to see a trusted friend meet with an accident.</s>
*selects threaten* -> <s>Give us what we want, or your children will pay in blood.</s>
*selects threaten* -> <s>Give us trouble and you die where you stand.</s>
*selects threaten* -> PLANE TICKETS BITCH!!!!

I stand corrected: clearly it's a great system that conveys an appropriate response every time.

 

[serch]

how would you ever have enough prewritten responses to make such a system work well?

I supose you'd have to multiply by, at least, three for a good illusion. Ie: You may have 5 options for the player to select with 3 different character dialog outcomes each one: 1 Success/Imposible. 2/ Insufficient skill. 3) Die fumble:Stg unexpected. But I had the idea that writers and immediate consequences are cheaper than programmers, graphic designers and long term story branching. I could be wrong, though.

You can even forget about representing character dialog outcome and go straight to NPC reaction so nobody puts words in your PC mouth, but I don't find this very appealing.

 

[Harbadakus-]

Harb: Your assumption is not based on fact. I could just as safely assume it will have multiple endings since TOB, most of BIO's games have had multiple endings with the only excpetions being NWN1 OC and SOU. KOTOR, JE, and HOTU have all had multiple endings, Though, admittedly, teh fact that ME is alreayds et up for a trilogy makes tricky; but still, the fatc BIO is aware of this makes it more likely they'll be able to accomplish this.

In fact, to put these assumptions to rest, I'll simply ask this q on the BIO baords. Hopefully, they'll answer. Heh.

Indeed, I suppose Mass Effect could easily have multiple endings for the final part of the trilogy.

 

[OverrideB1]

@Volourn

You just don't get it do you? It's not a case of liking or disliking a company, nor is it a case of comparing company X with company Y. It's a case of either believing what I see, or taking the word of campany that exists to sell it's own games

It's all very well for a company to state stuff in their FAQs and interviews. We've all seen the hype, regardless of the company putting it out. I just refuse to be convinced on the "evidence" of one carefully selected, out of context, video clip and a load of mealy-mouthed platitudes designed to hype a game.

When I've seen empirical evidence -- then I'll be convinced.

 

[galsiah]

serch:
Sure, but whatever the writing effort compared to programming / art (which would admittedly be less), you're still talking about tripling the amount of writing work. Assuming that you've got a fixed time to spend on writing, wouldn't it be better to get five really well written options, than fifteen rushed ones?

Also, you can't view it as a totally disconnected enterprise. If the fifteen (for example) options are to make any difference, they need to have consequences. That means programming work. If you're talking about a game like ME, where results can include actions (e.g. pulling a gun), then it's also extra animation work. [assuming *pull gun on NPC* isn't something that happens every other dialogue]

This could be interesting, but you'd have to consider whether it's an efficient use of resources. For an RPG I'd have thought not. For a Hitmanlike game, it might be [fairly fixed character, variety of action-based consequences to dialogue, rather than intricately worded quest branches...]

I think with an RPG which allows a variety of characters, you'd lose too much in terms of expression, and still fail to cover most differences between characters - even with a lot of work.

Also, I'm not sure there aren't better solutions without needing to remove direct player dialogue choice. For instance, dialogue options can become available/unavailable based on character traits (as in Fallout/Arcanum...). E.g. for a sleezy character, the tasteful option could simply not be there. This kind of system could work based on many inputs - with character personality traits having an influence, as well as attributes etc.

Alternatively you can give a certain dialogue, but have the result based on a skill check (as in many RPGs). With a text based game it's simple for the player to imagine that his character said the line convincingly/unconvincingly based on the result.
For a voice-acted game, you could (in theory) record two (or more) versions of each line, and have the character say the one which corresponds to the skill check. So for example if you're making a forceful threat, but fail the check, you get the "nervous" voice-over line - and therefore don't expect things to go well.

These solutions also take quite a bit of extra development - in writing / scripting / voice acting etc.. They all give some extra variety without losing the Precise Control (TM) over dialogue though - which is important IMO (for most RPGs, at least).

The main thing that is gained by having a more generic system (as in ME) is speed, from what I can see. That's also the "advantage" that's usually referred to. I just don't think this is a real gain. I'm sure that they will be able to design some situations where it makes good sense that you need to act quickly in a dialogue. However, that's what they'll be doing: setting up situations which suit their next-gen dialogue system.
It'd be quite possible to design a load of situations where quick action in dialogue is not necessary too. Certainly this would put certain constraints on design for a real time game. I don't think it's a harmful constraint though - much less harmful than denying me the right to choose what my character will say, at any rate.