Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zoomulator]

Listening to the interview on roguelike radio and the problems with the conversation engine. Haven't seen it suggested before, and I couldn't find anything.. so how about abstracting the conversations by narrating what's being said, rather than citing them word for word?

A few examples
"The man tells you to bugger off, but in a polite way"
"With a trembling voice she tells you there's a vampire kidnapping the towns children"
"The child laughs manically as he describes the intricate details of the sewer's decorated vaults"

The personality of the characters would be described rather than directly affecting what's being said to the player. It's still an insane engine to build, but a bit less so than building citations..

Sorry if this is obvious and already thought of.

[HartLord]

I don't know if it's been suggested before, but I at least think this is a great way to do the conversations.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think that this idea will be doomed WHEN Toady improves conversations.
Until then...well, you're controlling the character. Stuff like this makes you painfully aware of that distance between character and player. Also, for now I think it's fine and by the time it matters Toady will be changing the conversation code anyways.

[DG]

I think that this idea will be doomed WHEN Toady improves conversations.

What do you mean?

Stuff like this makes you painfully aware of that distance between character and player.

Do you mean if for example you create a character with no social awareness, but like to imagine that he's suave, and then he keeps doing badly in social situations and it jars your sense of immersion? I don't think that's a problem, so it's probably not what you mean...

[Damiac]

It goes with the whole "imagination" thing people like to go on about here.  No computer generated random conversation can ever seem real.  So a generic description lets you make it up yourself. 
I mean, the goofy stuff they say in conversation really makes you painfully aware of the distance between player and character, you know?  Not to mention that the character is a little @...

[King Mir]

I agree that non quoted text is a good fit for dwarf fortress. It allows you to express non verbal and verbal exchanges abstractly so that it doesn't seem repetative. However, GreatWyrmGold is correct in pointing out that it's not without it's own imersion problems. It takes away from the first person perspective.

[Zoomulator]

You play a character. The character isn't you. There's no first person perspective in dwarf fortress adventures, since the skills and (soon) the personality isn't yours, but the character's. You make the choices, but the rest is the character. It's all 3rd person, as in most other RPGs.

The distance between player and character has nothing to do with immersion. You get immersed in stories and films without you being in them. Same goes for games.

I find repetition and unimaginative replies to be far more immersion breaking than the fact that character I play doesn't represent the person I am.

Leaving room for interpretation is a big aspect of DF and I think that gives you less immersion breaking moments. It seems natural that the conversations follow the same line.

[10ebbor10]

Why not do what dwarf fortress always does. Add it to the raws.

You'd get a few categories of lines, each for every type of possible reaction, and are capable of modifying those. If, you want abstract, you can do that. And modders can easily modify conversations.

[GreatWyrmGold]

I think that this idea will be doomed WHEN Toady improves conversations.

What do you mean?

I mean, Toady isn't the type to half-ass stuff and leave it all abstracted when he could...not.

Stuff like this makes you painfully aware of that distance between character and player.

Do you mean if for example you create a character with no social awareness, but like to imagine that he's suave, and then he keeps doing badly in social situations and it jars your sense of immersion? I don't think that's a problem, so it's probably not what you mean...

No, I mean if I create a character and can't hear what's being said, it reduces conversations to being just, "Can I trade with you? No? Got any quests?"

It goes with the whole "imagination" thing people like to go on about here.  No computer generated random conversation can ever seem real.  So a generic description lets you make it up yourself. 
I mean, the goofy stuff they say in conversation really makes you painfully aware of the distance between player and character, you know?  Not to mention that the character is a little @...

Again, 0.34.11 =/= 1.0.01. How can you imagine things if not given all the requisite information DF has bristling at its virtual fingertips? After all, games far less complex than DF generate acceptable conversations. Do you not think Toady could do the same?

You play a character. The character isn't you. There's no first person perspective in dwarf fortress adventures, since the skills and (soon) the personality isn't yours, but the character's. You make the choices, but the rest is the character. It's all 3rd person, as in most other RPGs.

Yes, because the game says "Urist McAdventurer slashes the goblin in the left hand and the severed part goes flying off in an arc," not "You slash the goblin in the left hand and the severed part goes flying off in an arc."

I find repetition and unimaginative replies to be far more immersion breaking than the fact that character I play doesn't represent the person I am.

Now =/= end.

Leaving room for interpretation is a big aspect of DF and I think that gives you less immersion breaking moments. It seems natural that the conversations follow the same line.

I see adventure and fortress mode differently. Fortress mode gives you tons of info and leaves plenty up to interpretation. Adventure mode is more stingy with what it tells you, but explains it better.

[DG]

I think that this idea will be doomed WHEN Toady improves conversations.

What do you mean?

I mean, Toady isn't the type to half-ass stuff and leave it all abstracted when he could...not.

Stuff like this makes you painfully aware of that distance between character and player.

Do you mean if for example you create a character with no social awareness, but like to imagine that he's suave, and then he keeps doing badly in social situations and it jars your sense of immersion? I don't think that's a problem, so it's probably not what you mean...

No, I mean if I create a character and can't hear what's being said, it reduces conversations to being just, "Can I trade with you? No? Got any quests?"

You can chalk that one up to personal opinion then. I doesn't need to be half-assed and it could well increase my immersion.

[Damiac]

All I can say is I'd rather see - "You ask the human peasant if there is anything nearby worth investigating"
"The human peasant tells you of a frightening cult in the woods to the east"

rather than
"You say 'Excuse me sir human peasant, doth thou know of unusual happenings nearby"
"Human Peasant says 'Why yes good sir! There is a strange cult of vampires in those woods to the east!"

Because eventually the random generator is going to pull this same dialog.  The first example lets me imagine whatever dialog i like.  The second example could be much more well written than my example here, but the fact is, it's going to be repeated sooner or later, and that's a huge immersion breaker.

[alfie275]

Here's the relevant section btw, 32 minutes in:

...people have suggested that we should just kindof do all of the dialogue in, uh, without showing actual quotations but just saying like "Your brother says something cheerful" or something like that. And that's a possibility but I think that also has its problems of pulling you out of the situation...

[GreatWyrmGold]

Here's the relevant section btw, 32 minutes in:

...people have suggested that we should just kindof do all of the dialogue in, uh, without showing actual quotations but just saying like "Your brother says something cheerful" or something like that. And that's a possibility but I think that also has its problems of pulling you out of the situation...

"...but I think that also has its own problems of pulling you out of the situation..."
Sounds like Toady agrees that it could be a problem.

-----

Well, since this is the Suggestions subforum, I suggest we start considering methods that could have the best of both worlds. How about an option to have longer, unimportant bits of exposition summarized?

[Zoomulator]

Here's the relevant section btw, 32 minutes in:

...people have suggested that we should just kindof do all of the dialogue in, uh, without showing actual quotations but just saying like "Your brother says something cheerful" or something like that. And that's a possibility but I think that also has its problems of pulling you out of the situation...

Missed that part =D

[RenoFox]

Renofox agrees with Toady, citing that reading abstractions makes discussions sounds like a third party told you what was talked about. He writes a long, persuasive reply praising the raws and their possibilities, concluding that abstractions would be even more repetitive.