DIALOGUE CHOICES IN GAMES

Posts

Pages: 1
I've been mucking around with RPGs with social aspects to them, mainly WRPGs like Disco Elysium and New Vegas, but also some standouts like Persona 5. One thing I don't find much point in though is dialogue choices, I find myself not really leaning into a role. The worst being is the good/evil options which boils down to basic morality I don't care much for, which sometimes can lead to character inconsistency if you care too much about it. Persona 5 has a semi-mute character where you can choose between 3-4 things at key moments that don't have much consequence. However it makes me think about what would make for the most interesting reaction, rather than having choice paralysis. The drawback becomes why would you NOT pick the smartass/joke response every time? Playing it seriously feels like the boring canon thing, but also makes me think they should have just written an actual personality for the protagonist.

Another thing I don't understand is why so many games feel the need to have optional exposition dialogue where you either exhaust the list of available choices or don't bother. Sure some people might want to skip all the world building and what amounts to quest giver reminder thing but I'm always compelled to check it all anyway just in case. In a standard JRPG this is equivalent to talking to every NPC but at least I'm not standing in the same room listening to the same character go on and on. Stopping and giving me choices just impedes what could be a smoother/tighter exposition anyway.

Then there's the issue of the charm stat that can just mind control NPCs into giving you what you want. New Vegas thankfully made this into a threshold stat meaning if you have a high enough number you don't have to risk a disappointing dice roll. But if you do have it, why would you NOT pick the charm option every single time? Disco Elysium brought it back to dice rolls and has multiple stats for personality/intellect. It has an interesting way of making the stats into actual advisors, a voice in your head representing logic for instance will nudge you into not selecting certain stupid options. So there's at least some direction on what to say and what outcome it'll actually have. It does still loop around to just picking the option that would have the most fun outcome, and generally I feel like I'm missing out if my 50% roll didn't go well.

Then there's the whole social skill aspect, making social skills an actual challenge to overcome which I personally think is impossible. You either make it a combat with the context change to resemble a sort of debate or information exchange or really abstract it out into something really mucky that's different from combat but not at all from how talking to people irl actually works. Video games aren't very good at simulating social interaction. What makes the Persona series works is that it doesn't even really attempt it (sans demon taming in 5) and just makes it about choosing which characters you want to spend time with based on which ones you like (or who you think gives good benefits). It's more social life simulation than social simulation. The strength being that the writing of the hangout scenes carries the social aspects even though it's static. So I mean, it loops back to CYOA linear story telling being a solid and consistent format even if a bit rigid.

One weird idea I have is just give your customizable character personality traits or stats that affect some dialogue moments but there's no choice given or maybe not even a warning. CYOA driven by your actual character rather than you the player choosing on the spot. The story just unfolds before you based on choices you made at the start and acts like an autopilot. There are still a ton of possibilities but you're not allowed to branch unless you somehow change your character's personality (whoa maybe character growth?). This will probably cause more problems than it solves, as it doesn't give much feedback. There could be a little "Your high wit stat made this joke possible!" notification. Conversely the game won't tell you what you missed out on. Still it could clash with the writing. A level headed protagonist might suddenly overreact in situations if they have a high neuroticism stat or something. Which causes inconsistency especially if its built to have zero consequences. Although if you had the time it'd be interesting to see if the plot causes were brought about by different possible traits. Plot points still happen but they're brought about by different flavors of your snowflake personality.

Anyway, enough rambling. I want to know what YOUR thoughts on dialogue choices are in general. Especially from a player's perspective because I'm wondering if I'm the odd one out here. Though this is a pro-JRPG place I imagine there are some takes on the matter. Any thoughts appreciated.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Mind goblins are a rough thing to deal with balancing optimization and roleplaying. Ultimately, it all comes down to what you want to get out of your dialogue system in the first place. No two methods are the same, and the systems surrounding the dialogue options can make up for a system that may seem flawed on its own.

The thing that isn't mentioned about Persona 5 (and 4 and 3) is that there is actually an objectively correct dialogue choice during social link events. Because you're trying to get closer to them, you have to learn their personalities and select a dialogue option that will make them like you more so you can get their rank up perks faster. Failing to do so will not net you any affection points, essentially wasting multiple of your precious few days to hang out with them more to get their affection points back up to the next tier so you can progress their event. By itself, this is not a bad thing since often times the most "fun" dialogue choice is not the one that will give you the most points. However, the fact that you don't have nearly as many days as the game makes you think to interact with your friends changes the entire dynamic, forcing you to roleplay as a "people pleaser" in order to, ironically, max out their social link rank so you can move on to the next one. If there was a game structured like Persona 5, but with no time limit, then you'd be free to roleplay as whatever you want.

The closest series I can think of that does this is Rune Factory/Story of Seasons. Relationships with other characters is a linear progression, and the worst dialogue options (that I can think of right now) simply don't increase the relationship bar. However, there is no time limit, so you can progress your relationship with the people of the game at whatever pace you want.



Margaret hates squids, but the only way you can even get this dialogue option is if you're already dating her, so it's not like this is a potential relationship-ruining event since (in my head, at least) at this point your love interest is already well aware of the BS you try to pull in town and is used to it.

The hard part about defining a personality for a main character AND giving them dialogue choices is giving the MC a psychology that multiple different player personalities can fit into. Shepard from Mass Effect will always have the one goal of saving the galaxy from the Reaper invasion no matter what kind of personality that players want to give them. That one goal already places heavy restrictions on the morality players can have, because it clearly defines Shepard's moral compass. The players are left to fill in the blanks with how forgiving/punishing they want to be in the pursuit of that one goal.

Ludger from Tales of Xillia 2 had no spoken lines and only two possible dialogue choices at any given time, but a surprisingly strong personality shown through his movements and facial expressions that bounced off well with the rest of the cast during both main cutscenes and the skits. There is a relationship building system in that game, but you won't know exactly who is pleased by your options until after you make your choice. Even then, like Rune Factory, relationship building is all linear, and you have plenty of opportunities outside of dialogue choices to build up relationships with characters you didn't before.

The other alternative for dialogue options is just to remove any gameplay incentives for selecting one option or the other, freeing up players to choose how they would like to interact with other characters based on their desire alone. The only game that comes to mind here is Etrian Odyssey Untold's story mode. No matter what options you pick (and there are a surprising number of dialogue choice to make), there are no gameplay ramifications of any kind. They are there just for players to behave in whatever way they want. Whether or not any of them are "fun" for the player boils down to player preference and writing style.
Yeah I forgot to bring up the actual Social Link correct answer choicing. Those are at least gamified so there's a goal or a point to the choices, which actually puts them above "how quirky do you want to feel feel today?" but aside from quizing you on how much you paid attention it has its own dating sim purpose.

I definately lean more into wanting more inconsequencital choicing but potentially something that feels interactive. Like you're affecting the character chemistries in ways that a linear story wouldn't. Like imagine finding out that the girl hates squids based on an incidental choice and that unlocks a prank option to further mess with them with a squid. Though the problem with choicing is that you only see one of the outcomes if all of the choices are equally as interesting to see the character react to, and just... accepting that players will not see like 70% of the branching writing (or sadistically assuming they'll replay your game over and over). Then again that assumes the dialogue choice format is the only possibilty and not some alternative that accomplishes simular things.

I'm not sure what spurred this search other than me really enjoying FFXV and FF7 Remakes characterizations. They didn't have dialogue choices I could remember but it did make me seek out games where you're just faffing about with other characters and having a bit more agency. This does make me want to seek out games with more VN components though like Rune Factory. Yet with RF I hardly remember getting to the actual dating stuff since the beggining is frontloaded with a lot of farming and story setup.
I think more recent games have had kind of fun with dialogue choices. Disco Elysium is a game where I really wanted to roleplay. I don't know if the game actually does this (it probably doesn't) but occasionally it felt like I didn't want to ask too many expositionary questions because the character I'm talking to might actually think I'm mad and think less of me for asking stuff like "why is the sky blue?"

I also liked the idea of the inner voices essentially forcing you down certain paths (occasionally against the player's will) and the classic where stats open up new options (but the subversive thing Disco Elysium did was that it opened up new options that were actually bad. Usually in a game a high intelligence will get you a "smarter" question to ask but I noticed a couple of times in what I played of Elysium that the unlocked option was actually you being a terrible smartass without any regard for the emotions of the other character (for example))

I also think that time constraints such as the ones you found in the Telltale style games where you can ask a number of questions but eventually the game will move on and a "timed" event will happen. You can only ask so many questions before the bus arrives and you have to get on.


Of course generally the idea is that cutting people out of content is a bad idea. This is why RPGs in general are a bad idea because roleplaying sort of necessitates the freedom not to do something and not just to always do something (in the telltale games not saying something was as valid as actually saying something. And in the later games' Quick Time Events choosing to not press the action button was as valid an action as performing the action in question.)

Not doing an action is also quite powerful. I remember that my favourite moment in Mass Effect 3 was a moment where I could save a character by using an interrupt. The interrupt came up four times, basically the game was asking "are you really, really, really sure you will let this happen?" and it was incredibly satisfying to just let that go to the very end. Telltales' Game of Thrones game had a similar scene where you had to "bend the knee" and every time you didn't they basically beat the shit out of you. Game of Thrones being known for offing characters left and right, choosing to constantly stand up after being beaten came with a real chance that maybe the game would off a character because of my defiance.

Of course this is for roleplaying and I've found that I quite like roleplaying in roleplaying games these days. Realizing that I don't have to accept every quest or talk to every character (in Pillars of Eternity someone looked shifty as fuck, but had a character portrait but I just decided that "no, I don't want anything to do with you", turns out I missed out on one of the major quest chains by telling that guy to go fuck himself :D And it felt great)


There is of course something to be said for games not having to be roleplaying games and just have pregenerated characters that banter. Nothing is saying that you can't take the battle systems common in RPGs (tactical battles or whatever) and have a bunch of cool pregen characters bantering and not have a "Player Character" that is just an empty husk while the other dudes have all the fun writing.
One of the solutions I had for this "problem" is framing the dialogue choice in terms of lying, telling the truth, or something in between.

It shows what my main character thinks. For example:

THE TRUTH IS, I THOUGHT YOUR FOOD WAS TOO SALTY

Then you choose how honest to be with that truth. The struggle then becomes more realistic. You want to be an honest person, but being honest has the consequence of offending people, or being awkward, or just being wrong about something. Or maybe they appreciate that honesty!

The result is that you have to learn more about the characters your MC is chatting with and decide for yourself how much the MC needs to hide their true thoughts. No black and white morality, and no off-the-wall options: just variations on the truth.
Red_Nova
Sir Redd of Novus: He who made Prayer of the Faithless that one time, and that was pretty dang rad! :D
9192
Merlandese, that solution is an interesting one, but it seems to me that it forces the main character to have some elements of their personality already defined. In your example, is the the food being too salty objective fact? Or is that just the main character's personal preference?


Anyway, I was playing around with dialogue option designs lately, and I was wondering if the idea of giving control over the tone of a dialogue choice appealed to anyone? You would have a certain number of different responses to a question, but each one can be "colored" with a different tone to say the same thing in different ways. For example, below are the response options when a friend asks: "How is your day going?"



If each row in the assertive column is considered the "default" choices that could lead to different branches down the dialogue tree, coloring them with passive or aggressive tones would not change the ultimate outcome, but with more immediate feedback from whoever you are talking to.
Marrend
Guardian of the Description Thread
21781
author=Red_Nova
Merlandese, that solution is an interesting one, but it seems to me that it forces the main character to have some elements of their personality already defined. In your example, is the the food being too salty objective fact? Or is that just the main character's personal preference?

I took Merlandese's example to mean that the player chooses what the opinion of the PC/protagonist is. Like, I could imagine that particular example looking like...

[Lie] The food is too salty
[Truth] The food is too salty

...this.

*Edit: Your "mood" example might follow a similar structure.

[Passive] Nothing happening so far.
[Assertive] Take it or leave it.
[Aggressive] Bleh, today is boring!
author=Red_Nova
Merlandese, that solution is an interesting one, but it seems to me that it forces the main character to have some elements of their personality already defined. In your example, is the the food being too salty objective fact? Or is that just the main character's personal preference?

Yeah, in that example, the solution works specifically regarding characters that already exist as characters (think someone like Tidus in FFX). Not blank slates or mutes, but characters that already exist and yet you still want to control their dialogue options.

I do this in Placebo Love. The character has real inner truths (although those truths actually vary from player to player based on their choices, but that's a layer too complicated). You control the character and make their decisions, but there are things that are true no matter what about that character. If that character is from Sao Paulo, and a person asks "where are you from?", you then get to choose whether he tells the truth ("I am from Sao Paulo"), a half truth ("I'm not from around here.") or a full lie ("I was born here.").

You don't choose their reality, you choose how much of their reality they will reveal. And that is what branches the paths or affects others.

author=Red_Nova
If each row in the assertive column is considered the "default" choices that could lead to different branches down the dialogue tree, coloring them with passive or aggressive tones would not change the ultimate outcome, but with more immediate feedback from whoever you are talking to.

This reminds me a little of what Christina Love does in her games. Check out Ladkiller in a Bind. Options are usually categorized into things like FLIRTY or DRAMATIC or RUTHLESS. They each have different tweaks and, more importantly, not every dialogue option utilzes every single possible style. They are catered per scene. I think this gives the dialogue a nice robustness without feeling overwhelming.

Pages: 1