Dialogue & Intelligence

[ikbenrichard]

The one screenshot with dialogue that we did release -- shows a guy with a couple of "do you want to come with me" type of responses -- is actually an example of the smallest set of responses. The majority of NPCs have several more.

So ehm, why didn't you show any of the other dialogue paths or options that apparently all feature much better and expanded dialogue instead of one of the smallest ones?

I was wondering that myself.

 

[Black]

The connection is that people here and the Codex are typically glorifying AoD as being the holy grail of PC RPGs

What a crap, glorifying AoD would be idiotic because the game isn't even out yet. Personally I'd say that Torment had the best dialogue and I have no idea who here or on Codex is glorifying AoD in any way or even it's dialogue.

And what's even more important- I fail to see the damn connection between AoD and FO3. Care to elaborate or are you? just making another strawman?
I'll try to explain- bodybag brought AoD into this discussion to "serve" VD even though it doesn't have any connection. AoD and FO3 that is.
Some may call it by it's name. Trolling. Not really surprising tho'.

 

[Mutoes]

Sounds good. But whats bothering me is that theyre tellimg this now.

What i mean even when(when it was first mentioned there was loud objection towards -int has no effect in dialogue- there wasnt really any kind of clarifcation to this.

There are though few things that would explain this positive way such as:
They understood how meaningfull this is for fans and made changes
They just werent sure if they would implement it and gave us the worst case scenario type of description
or negative:
This is made so that its pretty insignificant to actual gameplay
There are only really couple of times that this happens

 

[Dracon M'Alkir]

And the dialogue itself wasn't bad...

- I saw a mudcrab the other day.
- Filthy little creatures. I avoid them whenever I can.

Brilliant stuff, I have to agree.

The mental image of someone saying this in Fallout 3 is both hilarious and horrifically cruel at the same time.

 

[VDweller]

Bethesda lied about different options, choices, and even consequences, but shipped the game without them.

Consequenses like soil erosion?

Consequences like:

"Past actions may also come back to haunt you."
"How the story unfolds is up to you and many times we give you more than one path..."
"We also spent a good deal of time considering what happens when you hit the top of each faction..."

Anyway....

And I don't mean to make it sound like they shouldn't release dialogue screenshots or anything, but is it really that common of a practice to do so? Even for RPGs? Serious question.

Yes. Interplay, Troika, Bioware, Obsidian, CD Project always released/release dialogue screenshots for their games. In fact, Obsidian showed Alpha Protocol dialogues in the first magazine article.

From what I understand all the pics released so far have been 360 screens and have been intended for magazines, where text screenshots look assy.

They don't look "assy". For example, that screen where your father tells you something is perfectly clear and visible.

My guess would be that PC version screens with dialogue will start popping up after E3.

I wouldn't count on it.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw this news. Well, first thought was "I wonder how many people are going to complain about this somehow".

Complain about this?

"Hey guys remember that shitty yes/no screen? Well, there could be EVEN MOAR option on top of that. Are we awsum or what?!"

Yes, I'm surprised myself. I guess some people are too negative no matter what.

Second thought was if anyone was going to notice that even AoD, the supposed goddamn holy grail, had 2 or 3 options for most sections of dialog.

Well....

a) I was not aware that AoD is some kinda grail. Neither your own opinion about the game nor your perception of why a handful of people like what they see so far makes it a fact.

b) There is a huge, HUGE difference between 2-3 meaningful options and a yes/no choice.

c) Fallout 1, the actual "goddamn holy grail" had 2-3 dialogue options in most cases. Now, do I have to explain the quality vs quantity concept or will you figure it out on your own?

 

[Brother None]

It's kind of telling that the only optimism you're comfortable showing is over-the-top sarcastic hyperbole.

Uh...what? I'm very optimistic about many things, like Spiderweb's engine change, AoD's release and sales, I'm cautiously optimistic about Obsidian's Aliens and even AP titles, I'm very optimistic about the work being done on the Witcher. I'm even optimistic about some things in Fallout 3, like the world art.

My optimism isn't the problem. The problem would be that you're not being an optimist, you're being naive. You honestly think it's "lacking optimism" if you don't swallow Bethesda's PR lines, when they've been documented to spread falsehoods, willingly or not (I don't care), about their previous title?

And Bioshock was WAY better than System SHLOCK 2

Uhuh. It's not like, say, Ken Levine himself indicated BioShock is a dumbed down SS2 to enable him to sell to the masses.

I was thinking the exact same thing when I saw this news. Well, first thought was "I wonder how many people are going to complain about this somehow". Second thought was if anyone was going to notice that even AoD, the supposed goddamn holy grail, had 2 or 3 options for most sections of dialog.

Uh, note how most of us said it's good news, but we simply don't blindly trust Bethesda. Why should we? There's no denying that a lot of what they said about Oblivion did not end up in the game. I don't care if you wish to call it lies or just "honest mistakes" on their part, their promises did not make it in the game. Should we then blindly assume it'll be different this time.

And AoD has shit all to do with Fallout 3. It's ridiculous to state that because AoD does something wrong or right that reflects on Fallout 3. AoD is not a Fallout game.

The connection is that people here and the Codex are typically glorifying AoD as being the holy grail of PC RPGs

1. This isn't the Codex.

2. We, unlike other people, actually understand that one RPG isn't the other. There is no "ultimate model" for "the perfect RPG". First person isn't inherently superior to isometric or vice versa. Real-time isn't better for every kind of RPG than turn-based or vice versa.

But Fallout is Fallout. It doesn't matter what works or doesn't work for other RPGs, be they Baldur's Gate, Gothic or Age of Decadence. We're not talking about BG, G or AoD, we're talking about Fallout.

I don't doubt it'll have more dialog than FO3, and most likely more choices more often, but when retards say "Consoles sappin mah dialog!" it makes me twitch.

Because dumbing down to sell more never happens?

Fallout is sort of a happy middle ground of sandbox and focus,

No, wrong. Sandbox is antagonistic of what Fallout is.

It's exactly this misconception that made Bethesda go "we thought Fallout was well suited to our skills" even though Oblivion and Fallout are as far removed from one another as Fallout and GTA or Fallout and WoW.

That said, it was probably the greatest (and only?) FPS/RPG ever made, but mostly by virtue of the RPG bit, not the FPS bit.

Nah, not only: Pathologic, System Shock 1 & 2, Deus Ex.

 

[nobuo]

And the dialogue itself wasn't bad...

- I saw a mudcrab the other day.
- Filthy little creatures. I avoid them whenever I can.

Brilliant stuff, I have to agree.

The mental image of someone saying this in Fallout 3 is both hilarious and horrifically cruel at the same time.

Replace mudcrab with radscorpion. I wouldn't be surprised at all. Oblivion was so boring after the pretty graphics wore off. I had no interest at all in the main storyline by about halfway through the game. At least with Morrowind the story was interesting. If they don't do a better job with the story in FO3, the pretty graphics will wear off and it'll be boring like Oblivion.

 

[Bodybag]

Uh...what? I'm very optimistic about many things[...]

So serious Anyways, as optimistic as you claim to be, your glass is definitely half empty:

Uhuh. It's not like, say, Ken Levine himself indicated BioShock is a dumbed down SS2 to enable him to sell to the masses.

Your "dumbed down" is Ken Levine's "more accessable."

We're not talking about BG, G or AoD, we're talking about Fallout.

And Bioshock, apparently.

Because dumbing down to sell more never happens?

Here you go again. Forgive me if this shakes your world down to its very foundations, but SS2 wasn't all that. All Ken Levine did was improve it, and the sale reflect that. SEE WHAT I DID THERE? I totally used money as some sort of objective measure of success. And I'm totally right.

No, wrong. Sandbox is antagonistic of what Fallout is.

This is debatable (I hope you're wiling to debate!). I'd say that, among its TB/ISO peers, Fallout was the sandbox RPG of its day. Your turn!

 

[VDweller]

Here you go again. Forgive me if this shakes your world down to its very foundations, but SS2 wasn't all that.

Using an idiotic review to support your opinion? How clever.

The RPG elements are what killed the game, period. There are plenty of other negative qualities too, but they're just desecrating an already dead corpse; the skill system is what pulled the actual trigger and left the body out where the scavengers could get at it. Having stat based skills is fine for a dedicated RPG because everything is abstracted; you see your avatar swing a sword or launch a fireball and the stats then take over and determine if you hit, how much damage you did, etc. In a FPS however you're more immersed in the game world; you don't issue an order to attack an enemy, you point the crosshairs at him and pull the trigger yourself, you don't see a number float above his head to tell how much damage you did, you count the brain fragments exiting the cranium. That's why horror games are real time, non-abstracted action. They immerse you into the game world far more than any turn based strategy RPG could ever hope to, and immersion is a key element in horror. The totally arbitrary skill system and other flaws kill the immersion, and with it any chance at a good horror game.

 

[Sander]

All Ken Levine did was improve it, and the sale reflect that. SEE WHAT I DID THERE? I totally used money as some sort of objective measure of success. And I'm totally right.

Don't troll.

This is debatable (I hope you're wiling to debate!). I'd say that, among its TB/ISO peers, Fallout was the sandbox RPG of its day. Your turn!

Sandbox games revolve around giving the player free roam to do whatever he wants. Fallout revolved around giving the player the freedom to do what he wanted - and suffer the consequences.

 

[Brother None]

Your "dumbed down" is Ken Levine's "more accessable."

And that's more than a semantics difference...how?

And Bioshock, apparently.

How so? Where was I comparing Fallout 3 as a game to BioShock as a game?

Here you go again. Forgive me if this shakes your world down to its very foundations, but SS2 wasn't all that. All Ken Levine did was improve it, and the sale reflect that. SEE WHAT I DID THERE? I totally used money as some sort of objective measure of success. And I'm totally right.

Ah, Caltrops says it isn't all that so objectively it isn't, and BioShock is objectively superior...because it sold more?

I'm going to assume you're trolling and ignore this, it's not very relevant to my argument any way, whether BioShock or SS2 is the better game. What's relevant is this: Ken Levine notes that dumbing down the narrative sells more, your story has to be fucking stupid, in his own words, to sell. That matches up fairly well with the way Fallout 3 is being treated to turn to a mass product.

Now get this, it doesn't matter if you want to troll about BS being better than SS 2 or if you believe that dumbed down games selling more makes them superior games because money = quality, what matters is that Ken Levine is a good example of what we're saying when we talk about dumbing down products, spiritual or real sequels, to compare to what's happening to Fallout 3.

This is debatable (I hope you're wiling to debate!). I'd say that, among its TB/ISO peers, Fallout was the sandbox RPG of its day. Your turn!

Sandbox means you can do whatever you want. Fallout hinges on two key concepts, you're limited by your character's skill in an absolute sense, if your character isn't good enough then you simply can't do something, and all choices you make have consequences, which means you can't go everywhere or do everything because one action will prevent you from taking another action.

I note you're ignoring a lot of points and posts where it's convenient for you, BB. Just so you know, if you're going to degrade this into a one-line troll-fest, it's gone. Trying to lure me into a BioShock-vs-SS2 debate as if that was actually the point is already borderline, rudely ignoring people is also close.

 

[Wooz]

In a FPS however you're more immersed in the game world; you don't issue an order to attack an enemy, you point the crosshairs at him and pull the trigger yourself, you don't see a number float above his head to tell how much damage you did, you count the brain fragments exiting the cranium.

Doesn't this strike anyone else as intensely ironic?

 

[Zaptoman]

Absolutely frickin' amazing. I've really got to give props to Bodybag, trying to fight the endless horde here. I think the point - often completely forgotten here - is that "mudcrabs. terrible creatures." is the equivalent of Fallout's red text. This is not to say that actual conversation dialog with characters was not superior in Fallout as compared to Oblivion. It clearly was. However, there were many characters you could not talk to at all. They would simply have a line of red text floating above their heads.

Now admittedly, things similar to the dialog promises made my Emil have happened before with Bethsoft. Never in regards to a Fallout game or with Oblivion in the background however. It is amazing (see above) that the slightest bit of positive news can turn this place into a hate fest. Ri-fricking-diculous. As for the present bit of news about dialog choices? I don't see any reason not to believe them.

 

[bazola]

This kind of isn't the topic anymore, but the reason why I bring up AoD is because it is a game currently under development, that follows the principles of the RPGs of yesteryear, which include Fallout 1 and 2. To say that the dialogue they have shown somehow doesn't measure up doesn't make sense to me. I'm pretty sure Fallout 3 is more complete, and we have seen less dialogue for it than we've already seen for AoD. Since they are both under development and both RPGs I think it is fair to compare this aspect of them.

However I don't think anyone feels it is the "holy grail." But why wouldn't RPG fans be interested in a new RPG on these forums?

Finally, it's just stupid to be offended when people say that consoles have dumbed down gaming. You would have to be a serious fanboy to be excited about the story of Fallout 3, for example. Even if by some miracle it has a great combat engine on release, that doesn't mean it isn't dumbed down. Combat is the thing that console gamers care about the most, followed by pretty graphics.

Sorry this is kind of a rant.


EDIT:

Now admittedly, things similar to the dialog promises made my Emil have happened before with Bethsoft.

As for the present bit of news about dialog choices? I don't see any reason not to believe them.

This is pretty ironic right here.

 

[Brother None]

Absolutely frickin' amazing. I've really got to give props to Bodybag, trying to fight the endless horde here. I think the point - often completely forgotten here - is that "mudcrabs. terrible creatures." is the equivalent of Fallout's red text. This is not to say that actual conversation dialog with characters was not superior in Fallout as compared to Oblivion. It clearly was. However, there were many characters you could not talk to at all. They would simply have a line of red text floating above their heads.

I agree, the Mudcrabs-line is something the Codex likes to mock and VD carried that here, but it's not the best example of what's wrong with Oblivion dialogue when compared to Fallout.

Now admittedly, things similar to the dialog promises made my Emil have happened before with Bethsoft. Never in regards to a Fallout game or with Oblivion in the background however. It is amazing (see above) that the slightest bit of positive news can turn this place into a hate fest. Ri-fricking'-diculous. I don't see any reason not to believe them.

You don't? The fact that what they said about a number of key issues, like RAI or the way the story and factions unfold in Oblivion, turned out to be not true. Just because they never said anything not true about dialogue specifically you want to believe them? They have to lie on every topic before you believe they lie on that topic?

Ok, that's fine.

Now for us and our hate-fest. Let's see:
Sounds good. - BN
I hope that this is true. But it would still be better, to see some screens from a dialog with more options and maybe a small example of choice and consequence. - Lexx
It does sound good, and Emil seems a lot less annoying than Todd to be honest. - Eyenixon
Sounds promising, but the fact that they shun showing any dialog is a bit suspicious... - Ezekial

And here's the key bit:
It sounds good, but then again, so do a lot of Bethesda's empty promises. I'll believe it when I see it. - Section8

Now look at that. Hate fest? No it isn't. Section8 is more than willing to note that this sounds good. So am I, and so are most of the commentators here. This is positive news, and it is greeted as positive news.

But - wait for it - we're not willing to just believe Bethesda on their pretty blue eyes, and are waiting for actual visual evidence of great dialogue to surface so we can verify this for ourselves.

According to you, not believing them = hate?

Ok then.

 

[Sander]

Absolutely frickin' amazing. I've really got to give props to Bodybag, trying to fight the endless horde here. I think the point - often completely forgotten here - is that "mudcrabs. terrible creatures." is the equivalent of Fallout's red text. This is not to say that actual conversation dialog with characters was not superior in Fallout as compared to Oblivion. It clearly was. However, there were many characters you could not talk to at all. They would simply have a line of red text floating above their heads.

Now admittedly, things similar to the dialog promises made my Emil have happened before with Bethsoft. Never in regards to a Fallout game or with Oblivion in the background however. It is amazing (see above) that the slightest bit of positive news can turn this place into a hate fest. Ri-fricking-diculous. As for the present bit of news about dialog choices? I don't see any reason not to believe them.

How about the fact that they made some very similar promises with Oblivion - and didn't keep them.
Or did you conveniently ignore that in your crusade to try to see all that's wrong with the reactions here?

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

It is amazing (see above) that the slightest bit of positive news can turn this place into a hate fest

You know, I'll never understand this kind of logic that is used both here and on the Sellout 3 forums to defend it against every claim, namely "you're assuming things and that's inherently evil".

The thing is, EVERYBODY is assuming things about this game, simply because Bethesda feels no need to clarify anything whatsoever. Every time a preview comes out, things like the Glowing Ones' radiation magic are left for us to interpret as we see fit, because they sure as hell aren't going to their forums to set the record straight, despite the many threads that are made. They used poor dialog screenshots so far, and instead of showing a good one they say "trust us, it's actually nice".

Only because I assume something bad does not mean that I am wrong, or even that your assuming of something good is somehow superior. And make no mistake, that's exactly what most of the people defending this game are doing: trying to read things in a good light or justifying their design choices. Though I'm sure your righteous fury stems from thinking that Fallout fans are unreasonable for not seeing it your way.

I read most news about this game in a very pessimistic way, but that is not without reason. Bethesda has a track record, and it points to two things: poor design (dialog included) and unfulfilled pre-rerlease hype. Simply hearing "you don't know for sure and should shut up" doesn't cut it to me, especially if you are going to go "yay, they said it's good dialog!" on the other hand.

 

[Zaptoman]

Though I'm sure your righteous fury

Righteous fury indeed. THAT's what I forgot! Where the heck is my holy water?? No. Now clearly here we've got some optimists and some pessimists. You can skip the whole jumping on my back because I don't think the way you do thing. Really, its ok.

stems from thinking that Fallout fans are unreasonable for not seeing it your way.

Right. I never said that. And those Fallout fans you speak of? I are one. So don't talk to me like I've somehow broken some sort of special Fallout brotherhood by seeing a fairly positive bit of news from Emil as actually being positive news.

 

[Seymour the spore plant]

You can skip the whole jumping on my back because I don't think the way you do

Geez, calm down man. There's some righteous fury right there.
My criticism was not about how you think, but that you did exactly what you now accuse me - you came into a thread only to tell people how they should react to news.

You can be as positive as you like (and I thought my post was pretty clear that assuming either way is the same to me), but seriously, read your last post and tell me you gave the negative crowd the same chance.

And those Fallout fans you speak of? I are one. So don't talk to me like I've somehow broken some sort of special Fallout brotherhood

No brotherhood at all, only your point there is often made by the anti-NMA crowd, so I jumped to conclusions. Sorry about that.

 

[VDweller]

You don't? The fact that what they said about a number of key issues, like RAI or the way the story and factions unfold in Oblivion, turned out to be not true. Just because they never said anything not true about dialogue specifically you want to believe them? They have to lie on every topic before you believe they lie on that topic?

You missed my post on the first page?

"I think the strength of our dialogue and characters in Oblivion are actually going to surprise a lot of people." Gavin Carter, producer.

edit: If you mean dialogue choice specifically, they were promised quite often. If you want to see some quotes, let me know.