Ashmo said:
Rosh:
What do you think about an object-oriented speech system with common subtrees for more than one NPC? It seems like a good way to make "generic" NPCs more individual (you don't need to replace the entire tree and can just add some additional options) but not much more than that to me.
For common NPCs, it isn't too much to expect them to know the location and what is going on around it. Even then, you really don't need to script in something like that. There, a simple keyword system WOULD be a bit time-saving all-around and not require that you run through a load of speech options in order to find the item you're looking for. That is where speech trees are poor, but combined with a keyword system, it could be fleshed out into a much more logical system. So instead of getting railroaded into talking to some commoner on the street and maybe page awhile through a list of options like how literacy-challenged lust there advocates but doesn't understand that it's just as bad, you can simply say hello and ask them about a trading post or similar to figure out where to buy supplies via the "Tell me about/Let's talk about" input.
You can't have every NPC have an option for every topic (although that would be possible with the above-mentioned system) because they end up being even more repetitive than generic NPCs already are. I suppose there is no way around having specialised NPCs who only talk about certain topics, but I think the real problem is that some RPGs (especially AD&D based ones) tend to have one-option or two-option replies only as soon as you ask the NPC something in particular and you end up being overrun by useless information with no way to go back until the monologue is over (Fallout almost always provided a "Nevermind"-ish option, so that was less annoying).
The trick is that when you only have one or two people who show an option, then it becomes obvious to use the Yellow Keycard in the Yellow Door. By having the topics be logical to the person you're talking to, like Scribe Vree, then you could talk about such subjects about "mutants" and go from there into related topics. Some might need an introductory bit of speech of the person talking about it before you get to the other branches of the topic. "Mutant" would need a brief introductory bit before you went into the discussion that went into possible subjects such as "mutant sterility" or similar. Or if you asked about "mutant sterility", then there would be another introductory bit (likely with the dialog I've used as example below), with possible other related topics dealing with that subject available in a speech tree afterwards, or back to the main speech tree.
As for the avilability of the keywords, it could be just like in Wizardry 8, where putting in a keyword outside of the character's knowledge may result in some more information, but nothing really advancing yet. Such as Scribe Vree saying "How did you know I was working on that? Well...the research isn't quite complete yet, give me a while." in regards to asking directly about "mutant sterility".
Keywords could be used for NPCs as the one that "I need a way to get down the well." Then, the player could put in the word "rope" into "Tell me about...", though it could be in a more logical "Let's talk about..." phrasing to make it more clear to its use in this manner. It would still be dependent upon the skills and stats of the PC, so while the player might think of using rope, the Torr Twin might just grunt out "'ope! 'ope!"
"'ope? Yeah, I'll have hope. Thanks moron."
Then, Doofus may have to barter the rope over to the NPC and suggest the topic again (or do that to begin with), to get the idea across.
There should be no speech tree option that would be the equivalent of a BLINK tag in HTML that makes it painfully obvious that you should specifically use the item there, or even a few having similar would still be a problem. This way, it will add a bit more to the interaction depth of speech. That example just used adds a bit more puzzle-solving and the use of common sense, rather than just playing through the game on autopilot depending upon your stats. Showing initiative to solve someone's problem versus having the solution handed to you. Very good for design, in particular that point.
lust said:
I admit it's annoying to cycle through speech trees to get them to tell you what your character needs to hear, but I don't think that's a fault of the dialog metaphor.
Try in English this time. That made absolutely no sense, thank you for trying to fake the topic.
Now, if you meant the dialog system, then yes, a convoluted system where everything is done within the speech trees does tend to be more at random to get to the pertinent topics, or they will spoon-feed you the answer depending upon your skills and ability. Unless you're developing for BioWare, spoon-feeding is a fairly bad thing since it is just another part of the game that plays itself for you, becoming typical of most BioWare games where the only role-playing in the game is within the first five minutes - character creation.
Unless your suggesting a parser where you type in the blank, it's not that hard to add in a "Tell me about" node from the get go, and have a mess of options. With a little hacking you could merely write macros for the .msgs.
Again, thank you for not reading the topic. I already covered that. At length.
In fallout2 they have "tell me about the blah blah" and it's annoying as hell, because it's totally irrelevant. I'm just saying it doesn't have to be that way.
In Fallout 1, it had some use, which could be expanded upon and I pointed out how it could be expanded upon. In Fallout 2...you're trying to blow smoke up my ass because it wasn't in Fallout 2. That's your problem with discussions, you can't fake it when the topic is still here to view.
In addition, I had already pointed out the flaw in your "idea". I know how to put in topic lists into speech trees. That is entirely wasteful when you consider it could just as easily be done in another way without having to scroll or flip through the lists in the speech tree.
I do happen to agree with you that I can't stand RPGs that 1)attempt to spoonfeed me / lead me along a dialog trail and 2) have very transparent or 1-dimensional quests with only one way to solve them / are enabled for only one play-style, or worse, have quests that involve moving blocks around to solve some sort of graphical puzzle which has no fictional ties to the game.
Then why did you try to purport just that, and keep trying to fake some understanding about the topic?
Unless you're only going to have an NPC used for a token item like "Rope NPC", it makes the speech trees pretty damn convoluted. Again, I'd suggest you actually try to tinker with this to come up with some idea how much more of a pain in the ass it is to make convoluted speech trees, or how the NPC's purpose being intrinsically tied to by the rope dialog appearing straight out from someone's ass is corny as hell.
I actually have.
Let me know when you get past the "Oooooh! I can make different words appear in the game!" phase and wish to talk about real design.
I mean, ideally, different NPCs would have different things to say about each given topic (if you want to talk about corny, we can talk about the Icewind Dale series where EVERY NPC said the same damn thing about a given topic except for one "special" one) so you're still going to have to write the same amount of dialog.
That was so day-glo helmet, I'm surprised you tried to use that fallacy. Yes, I know Asswind Dale had crap for design, that doesn't surprise me nor is your use of it really relevant to the discussion nor my reply. With Common NPCs, you have the generic items like location, rumors, crap like that. They could even have a set of generic topics that you could ask them with the "Tell me about/Let's talk about" input that could be scoped regionally, socially, and still giving consideration to the PC's reputation and skills.
And get this - you don't have to write extra speech trees nor does any player have to wade through them to find the piece of cheese.
Well, there went a wasted two minutes writing that out.
(Snip irrelevant straw man argument.)
Now we get to the piéce de resistance...
I'd rather have that and different dialog mazes than having no dialog mazes and all free NPC talk.
But maybe we have to agree to disagree on that one.
I'll warn you a final time. If you're not going to bother reading this topic and the replies, then you can refrain from posting in this topic from now on. Your mouth-stuffing arguments are not too appreciated here. If you can't understand something, take a hint from someone else who doesn't have English as a mothertongue, then be intelligent and respectful enough to crack open a dictionary, and then try to figure out what the adults are talking about. Or show the maturity to ask. Or maybe just give up as you've displayed a marvelous failure of literacy, though you imply you have read the discussion and replies by merit of the Quote function.
You are not faking it too well, Comcast.
Kotario said:
Also, there are plenty of native English speakers who use worse English than you.
And more that don't even bother to try...
