Tanix said:....snip....
You could for instance have a shady NPC who is indirectly asking you to steal an item for them, and in their dialog they have all but outright stated they want you to steal it. You could implement a trigger with the word "steal" (or like word) which causes them advance the conversation and admonish you for using that word, claiming they don't "steal", they prefer to think of it as reducing people of their physical burdens.
The point is, triggers can be hidden and numerous approaches to dialog can be made to hide concepts in the interaction where the player has to critically read to figure out what is really being asked.
.....snip....
The point is, with a text input system, the player must read, look, think, and inquiry while click systems really are just bouncing balls.
Would this make questing much harder for the average player today, It depends… but… it would be quite fulfilling in play as it would actually be more akin to D&D where you had to play the detective in the story and actually figure things out.
Totally agree, in fact I would be disappointed if VR didn't do this.
VR has probally figured out that they need to design a MMORPG within a MMORPG. I can see this in the mechanisms of "Horizontal Leveling" and the "Perception System: Give the player the option to explore everything in the world. But there will be those who will segment the world and create a artificial ending points to content in areas, and then move on. It's in human nature for humans to rush through things. VR may have to allow it, and a way to combat (instant gratification crowd) it is to allow for a deeper system to exist with the system. Like a "Layered MMO".
So yes the bold linked text in dialogs will be available. But for the players, who originated from D&D, who see MMORPGs as the next progression from "pencil and paper role-playing games" should be rewarded for awareness, due diligence and creativity. Allow secret key words to unlock secret dialogs, that leads to dialogs, that lead to a quest.
Let there be some quests that begin with a loose thread.
That is possible, but unless there is a direct consequence to such, most players will simply click through each branch without reading until they hit a branch end that produces a result (I have actually played games with this type of system and fast clicking to an end result is actually quite effective if you don't want to read).
As for "busy work", critical reading is never "busy work", the player has to read, figure out the relevant context and then query for it. Granted, if you design your conversations in a very simplistic form, hunting for the relevant topics (ie keywords, phrases) might be very easy, but then that would be the fault of the writer, not the system. Even the most complex highlighted system really is just a branch of hyper texts that result in an end to that branch so someone could essentially just click through without ever reading and get to an end branch.
You're clearly speaking of poorly written dialogue trees here. Well written ones aren't guaranteed at all to have decision points at the end of a branch. The very first thing you say can already dictate what branches and possible outcomes are available to you and you might only get one opportunity to say it. Or it can be something in the middle. You have to pay attention from start to finish unless you simply do not care what outcome you're going to get. Critical reading requirements are not exclusive to hidden keywords. I know that to cater to less attentive players, newer games like Pillars of Eternity have had the option to display required skill checks and resulting alignment changes of dialogue choices etc. along with the tree options you can pick, but I always play with those turned off because that's honestly the way it's meant to be experienced. That way you do not know the consequences before you take your pick.
There have been plenty of games even with simplistic dialogue trees where choosing the wrong option or maneuvering yourself into a deadlock with no positive outcomes left outright gets you killed and the only way you're going to be warned your choices might result in such an outcome is if you paid attention to the entire conversation and possibly even the context of the conversation and the background of the character you're talking to. This really isn't unique to text-based adventure games. In fact I'd say a lot of point & click adventure games, including Indy & the Fate of Atlantis, have done it better (logical and actually noticeable cues as opposed to 'haha you died in some hilarious fashion, try again').
I mean, you could make it where if the player goes down the wrong branch, the NPC will no longer talk to them for a bit, or it could be something that reduces faction with the NPC so if players dumbly iterate through highlights they can eventually damage factions.
Yes, those are some decent examples of consequences for choosing poorly. Though I think temporary lockouts are a bit on the mild side. I prefer lasting consequences. Also, not every choice in a tree has to be about good or bad outcomes. It can also just be a choice that leads to a different experience tailored to the player.
So yes the bold linked text in dialogs will be available. But for the players, who originated from D&D, who see MMORPGs as the next progression from "pencil and paper role-playing games" should be rewarded for awareness, due diligence and creativity. Allow secret key words to unlock secret dialogs, that leads to dialogs, that lead to a quest.
I'm all for this implementation. Clickable options for the bulk of dialogue choices, but a method to input secret keywords for things that are actually meant to be obscure. Secret quest hooks and hidden solutions to quests, access to secret bits of info or lore, or even a password to be allowed entry into the thieves guild. Like I said, I hope to avoid the mind-numbing busywork of trying to figure out what the developers specifically intend for me to say for every bit of dialogue. That's not like D&D at all, because if you talk to an NPC in D&D with an actual person taking on the role of a DM you're going to get a response regardless of what you say to them and the story will go on even if you didn't bring up topic X with exact wording. It's just not possible to replicate that level of open endedness with scripted NPC's and dialogue. Text based input for scripted keywords is good in moderation only.
Kaeldorn said:You're clearly speaking of poorly written dialogue trees here. Well written ones aren't guaranteed at all to have decision points at the end of a branch. The very first thing you say can already dictate what branches and possible outcomes are available to you and you might only get one opportunity to say it. You have to pay attention from start to finish unless you simply do not care what outcome you're going to get. Critical reading requirements are not exclusive to hidden keywords. I know that to cater to less attentive players, newer games like Pillars of Eternity have had the option to display required skill checks and resulting alignment changes of dialogue choices etc. along with the tree options you can pick, but I always play with those turned off because that's honestly the way it's meant to be experienced. That way you do not know the consequences before you take your pick.
There have been plenty of games even with simplistic dialogue trees where choosing the wrong option or maneuvering yourself into a deadlock with no positive outcomes left outright gets you killed and the only way you're going to be warned your choices might result in such an outcome is if you paid attention to the entire conversation and possibly even the context of the conversation and the background of the character you're talking to. This really isn't unique to text-based adventure games. In fact I'd say a lot of point & click adventure games, including Indy & the Fate of Atlantis, have done it better (logical and actually noticeable cues as opposed to 'haha you died in some hilarious fashion, try again').
That is why I said there has to be a consequence in the dialog choice, which is what you describe. If the consequence is they have to start over and choose a different tree branch, they will do that over reading carefully. While I would be fine with such a system, I am not sure if VR would see putting in a direct consequence system due to someone not reading. I think it would cause way too many tantrums, but as I said, I am all for it (though I prefer the depth of a text input system).
Kaeldorn said:
Yes, those are some decent examples of consequences for choosing poorly. Though I think temporary lockouts are a bit on the mild side. I prefer lasting consequences. Also, not every choice in a tree has to be about good or bad outcomes. It can also just be a choice that leads to a different experience tailored to the player.
This won't go over well. There are many reasons a person may make a mistake, having no means to repair them doesn't go over well with a lot of people. I personally don't think it is a healthy design, just as I don't care for perm death (in long term development systems) or corpse rott penalties. There has to be some allowance for error, even "stupidity" by the player where they can learn, and improve without being permantely penalized. The idea is to make the fast clicking behaviors ineffective (ie like a temp password lockout) so the player will either have to slow down and read, or end up having to come back another time to try again.
Yet again, I think all of this is solved by requiring the player to text input query with no hints, no highlights, no bouncing balls. The player will have to read the text, think about what may be relevant and make an inquiry. There is no way to fast click such an implementation and simply typing in words dumbly (ie without reading) won't produce much result either.
I am not sure why some people are so against the text input system. I mean, I get it, the old systems had a ton of problems, but if those problems aren't a major issue today, what would be the objection?
((This won't go over well. There are many reasons a person may make a mistake, having no means to repair them doesn't go over well with a lot of people. ))
So your vote is to abandon the rigour of old school gaming in favor of modern conveniences - in order to attract players that have become used to doing things the easy way and to being able to make mistakes without consequences.
I think we need to maintain our old school principles without this wimpy caving in to those that want to be able to have fast travel (through quest language) instead of slow and possibly dangerous travel through quest language.
In other words Kaeldorn is right - there is more interest, more excitement and more suspense in a MMO when actions have consequences. People will learn to *read* quests if they want to take them - this is a *good* thing.
I could see your position if this was primarily a quest-based game where a character could be really limited in how it progresses based on screwing up some quest choices. But in a game where quests are marginalized and no one needs to do them in the first place - at least let them mean something please to those that want to do them.
dorotea said:((This won't go over well. There are many reasons a person may make a mistake, having no means to repair them doesn't go over well with a lot of people. ))
So your vote is to abandon the rigour of old school gaming in favor of modern conveniences - in order to attract players that have become used to doing things the easy way and to being able to make mistakes without consequences.
I think we need to maintain our old school principles without this wimpy caving in to those that want to be able to have fast travel (through quest language) instead of slow and possibly dangerous travel through quest language.
In other words Kaeldorn is right - there is more interest, more excitement and more suspense in a MMO when actions have consequences. People will learn to *read* quests if they want to take them - this is a *good* thing.
I could see your position if this was primarily a quest-based game where a character could be really limited in how it progresses based on screwing up some quest choices. But in a game where quests are marginalized and no one needs to do them in the first place - at least let them mean something please to those that want to do them.
That is a straw man. Not only have I never argued a position of irrepairable consequence, but you would be hard pressed to find games of old that applied that level of implementation. So please, spend a bit more time trying to understand an argument rather than simply trying to "win" one.
As I pointed out to him, I am all for consequence, but if there is no means for a person to learn form a mistake and correct it, then you aren't promoting game play, you are applying a test with a pass/fail implementation. That won't go overwell for most people, even the "old school" players. EQ had some things like that in its questing with the epic quest engines bugs eating a players hard sought raid drop they spent hundred of hours on. That wasn't design, that was a bug, much like corpse rotting was simply a limitation of the game system.
If your argument is that the only way we can have EQ like features is if we take all the bugs, exploits, and limitations of EQ, then you are arguing for an EQ clone, not I. I am arguing for the concept of play to which EQ provided, not a word for word implementationn.
Spend a bit more time understanding before you try to proclaim an "I gotcha".
dorotea said:((This won't go over well. There are many reasons a person may make a mistake, having no means to repair them doesn't go over well with a lot of people. ))
So your vote is to abandon the rigour of old school gaming in favor of modern conveniences - in order to attract players that have become used to doing things the easy way and to being able to make mistakes without consequences.
I think we need to maintain our old school principles without this wimpy caving in to those that want to be able to have fast travel (through quest language) instead of slow and possibly dangerous travel through quest language.
In other words Kaeldorn is right - there is more interest, more excitement and more suspense in a MMO when actions have consequences. People will learn to *read* quests if they want to take them - this is a *good* thing.
I could see your position if this was primarily a quest-based game where a character could be really limited in how it progresses based on screwing up some quest choices. But in a game where quests are marginalized and no one needs to do them in the first place - at least let them mean something please to those that want to do them.
Yes, we really don't know how impactful questing will be. So I'm not really worrying on it yet.
That being said, VR has to make keeping butts in the seat a priority. Not necessarrily attracting new players, but as subs go so does the game. If they have to start laying people off then the game will suffer. That DOES NOT mean they have to cater to the lowest common denomintator as a lot of games now a days do.
And this has nothing really to do with "old school" but text bashing has it's limitations no matter how much you romantisize it. Take for instance the old pen and paper games, when you were going through an adventure you had a DM/GM who would provide context to the words, not just words listed in a logical order. When an NPC complained that the "stinking monkeys were loud today" You could determine if the NPC hated the monkeys or he just thought they smelled bad. That is missing in the text bash quests of old. You can understand the words on the screen and completely miss the NPCs meaning.
I really don't know what a good compromise would be, heavy penalties are not the answer. I mean if someone is being intentionally dense that's one thing. I mean in the beginning SOTA would release the funnier conversations people had with NPCs and it was comical.
But I'm fairly certain VR will implement a quest system that a little more adaptive.
((EQ had some things like that in its questing with the epic quest engines bugs eating a players hard sought raid drop they spent hundred of hours on))
I have played scores of CRPGs (computer roleplaying games) where quest choices once made were irrevocable. Often with far more lasting consequences than in a game like Pantheon where quests will not be very important. I was not referring to Everquest.
The way that people can learn from their mistakes is to remember them and read the *next* quest. Being able to carry a portable time machine and change what you did on the *last* quest is not the way since that would mean your mistake on the last quest would *not* have consequences.
Having in-game decisions and actions subject to change if they don't work out the way the player would have liked could lead equally logical arguments that there should be no death penalty - "I didn't read the situation properly and typed the wrong combat command in so I died - I should be able to go back and redo it". Ridiculous but once the camel's nose forces its way into the tent - those of us intent on keeping things like a strict death penalty start to worry.
This won't go over well. There are many reasons a person may make a mistake, having no means to repair them doesn't go over well with a lot of people. I personally don't think it is a healthy design, just as I don't care for perm death (in long term development systems) or corpse rott penalties. There has to be some allowance for error, even "stupidity" by the player where they can learn, and improve without being permantely penalized. The idea is to make the fast clicking behaviors ineffective (ie like a temp password lockout) so the player will either have to slow down and read, or end up having to come back another time to try again.
Not every choice in a tree has to be about good or bad outcomes. It can also just be a choice that leads to a different experience tailored to the player. While in some cases a negative result because of an error can be appropriate (like announcing your allegiance to the wrong person), consequence doesn't have to equate to punishment. As someone who brings up D&D you should know that in that game making choices and closing doors behind you often just leads to different opportunities. For something like a password I can see a temporary lockout working well I suppose, but only if it's meaningfully long (i.e. not something you can try again every 5 minutes). But that example is not so much about making a choice as it is about earning access.
There is no way to fast click such an implementation and simply typing in words dumbly (ie without reading) won't produce much result either. I am not sure why some people are so against the text input system. I mean, I get it, the old systems had a ton of problems, but if those problems aren't a major issue today, what would be the objection?
Yet that's exactly what's frequently going to be required with only text input. It's tolerable if the keywords are limited to words that are actually mentioned within short bits of dialogue by the NPC you're talking to at that moment (as was the case in EQ1 most of the time), but once it gets more wordy/descriptive and the inputs include entire phrases, or words that weren't said in the dialogue at all, it becomes a guessing game to figure out what the writers specifically intend for you to say. Trying phrase after phrase until you hit the correct one just because the writer had a different idea of what's the most appropriate or the most relevant combination of words isn't a challenge, but a chore.
I'm OK with that if it's supposed to be a secret that's intentionally hard to find and that deserves a reward, but for things like informing an NPC of a family member's death I would much rather have a dialogue option I can click on because it's so obvious. I don't want to be trying ["Bob", "Bob died", "brother", "dead", "sorry", "accident"] etc. when the desginer wants me to type "bad news" or something similar just because an NPC I spoke to an hour ago told me to deliver the bad news of Bob the miner's unfortunate demise - as a result of an accident - to his brother Ross in River's End, and that they're very sorry the healer wasn't able to save him and a hundred other details about what happened to him. I wouldn't expect the designers and QA testers to check for every phrase that's remotely logical to use either, because that makes the whole process of creating dialogue and quests way more expensive and it will limit the number of options the player can be given to get differing outcomes for quests. There's much more to be gained from offering more options and alternative solutions to quests in NPC interaction than there is from obfuscating what input will trigger a response.
No amount of current technology, synonym checkers or leniency in spelling is going to solve the inherent problems that come with 100% text input. At least not until someone develops a storytelling AI that can give fitting responses whilst taking into account an NPC's personality and advance the dialogue and the plot of a quest accordingly (as opposed to taking very specific input for a very limited set of predefined responses), which I don't see happening in the near future.
Kaeldorn said:
Not every choice in a tree has to be about good or bad outcomes. It can also just be a choice that leads to a different experience tailored to the player. While in some cases a negative result because of an error can be appropriate (like announcing your allegiance to the wrong person), consequence doesn't have to equate to punishment. As someone who brings up D&D you should know that in that game making choices and closing doors behind you often just leads to different opportunities. For something like a password I can see a temporary lockout working well I suppose, but only if it's meaningfully long (i.e. not something you can try again every 5 minutes). But that example is not so much about making a choice as it is about earning access.
The point is, putting in irreversible consequences is always a bad decision in a game. There is a reason why most developers don't have such implementations. There is always a few who will accidentally, and reasonably end up selecting the wrong choice and if you force a consequence without remedy, regardless if it is a penalty or not, it will result in the player being negatively frustrated (ie like they were cheated). In EQ, frustration was normal, but negative frustration was when the game cheated a reasonable player. For instance, a player simply trying to follow the proper dialog having their quest item ate by the NPC. The result could have been a misunderstanding of the quest dialog, the person was tired, a bug, etc.. but the result ended in a consequence that lost their item. Even if the consequence is not directly a punishment, if a player makes an accidental choice and ends up missing their opportunity, it will produce resentment, anger, and while the player may be "responsible" the reason for that may not be a clear cut issue. In single player games, it is fine, the player can reload, but in an MMO where there is no such fallback, forcing players to a choice, without any means to remedy their error comes with too many issues.
Kaeldorn said:
There is no way to fast click such an implementation and simply typing in words dumbly (ie without reading) won't produce much result either. I am not sure why some people are so against the text input system. I mean, I get it, the old systems had a ton of problems, but if those problems aren't a major issue today, what would be the objection?
Yet that's exactly what's frequently going to be required with only text input. It's tolerable if the keywords are limited to words that are actually mentioned within short bits of dialogue by the NPC you're talking to at that moment (as was the case in EQ1 most of the time), but once it gets more wordy/descriptive and the inputs include entire phrases, or words that weren't said in the dialogue at all, it becomes a guessing game to figure out what the writers specifically intend for you to say. Trying phrase after phrase until you hit the correct one just because the writer had a different idea of what's the most appropriate or the most relevant combination of words isn't a challenge, but a chore.
They have to read first to even begin to input words and is it dumbly at that point or are they trying to think of relevant responses? See, at that point it is an inquiry process and not simply dumbly typing in (sure, some may, but then I never said there aren't dumb people who will act dumbly). This is not the same as someone who simply clicks highlights and brackets. I know it is a matter of taste, but there is not an equivalency in the methods. One leads the player to a result (by giving them options of bouncing balls), the other requires the player to lead themselves and discover the answer. Also, the point of inserting thesaurus, dictionaries, even some interactive AI logic systems you can reduce the problems that existed in past text input games.
Kaeldorn said:
I'm OK with that if it's supposed to be a secret that's intentionally hard to find and that deserves a reward, but for things like informing an NPC of a family member's death I would much rather have a dialogue option I can click on because it's so obvious. I don't want to be trying ["Bob", "Bob died", "brother", "dead", "sorry", "accident"] etc. when the desginer wants me to type "bad news" or something similar just because an NPC I spoke to an hour ago told me to deliver the bad news of Bob the miner's unfortunate demise - as a result of an accident - to his brother Ross in River's End, and that they're very sorry the healer wasn't able to save him and a hundred other details about what happened to him. I wouldn't expect the designers and QA testers to check for every phrase that's remotely logical to use either, because that makes the whole process of creating dialogue and quests way more expensive and it will limit the number of options the player can be given to get differing outcomes for quests. There's much more to be gained from offering more options and alternative solutions to quests in NPC interaction than there is from obfuscating what input will trigger a response.
No amount of current technology, synonym checkers or leniency in spelling is going to solve the inherent problems that come with 100% text input. At least not until someone develops a storytelling AI that can give fitting responses whilst taking into account an NPC's personality and advance the dialogue and the plot of a quest accordingly (as opposed to taking very specific input for a very limited set of predefined responses), which I don't see happening in the near future.
If the quests were designed as they were back then where input was very limited, narrow, etc... you might have a point, but a quest input can cover numerous optional reactions or answer responses based on a range of responses. Treating the quest conversation like an object and giving relational key words to each object that structures a given response can avoid a lot of these issues of exact syntactical response. Also, as I said using AI tools, dictionaries, thesauruses and the like can empower a text engine to a level where the "dumb errors" are less likely.
At the end of the day, nothing is a 100%, there will be some things that fall through the cracks, but this is with any system. I think the benefits of such a system greatly outweigh the negatives. EQ, even with all of its pains in questing I find far superior than any game today which is nothing more than reading and clicking. Now is there a way to come up with a deep system? Maybe, but you don't get that by handing people the answers (ie leading them along in the conversations). Lets be honest, most of the problems people will have I don't think will be due to "exact phrases", or the like, rather it will be that they are not used to thinking for themselves. I saw this a lot in LoTRO where the quests were just information, the player had to read everything, then figure out what was being asked (ie the NPC didn't step them through a conversation where it was structured to lead the player to a result, it was just a response and the rest was up to the player). I saw MANY people who would yell out in chat "Where do I go for XYZ quest?" only to have people respond "Did you read the quest, try that, it will do wonders!".
Tanix said:They have to read first to even begin to input words and is it dumbly at that point or are they trying to think of relevant responses? See, at that point it is an inquiry process and not simply dumbly typing in (sure, some may, but then I never said there aren't dumb people who will act dumbly). This is not the same as someone who simply clicks highlights and brackets. I know it is a matter of taste, but there is not an equivalency in the methods. One leads the player to a result (by giving them options of bouncing balls), the other requires the player to lead themselves and discover the answer. Also, the point of inserting thesaurus, dictionaries, even some interactive AI logic systems you can reduce the problems that existed in past text input games.
This gives me horrible flashbacks to my time in primary/secondary school taking multiple choice exams. I was always able to come up with interpretations of answers/questions where multiple answers could be correct and figuring out which "right" answer the test wanted was a waking nightmare.
Would really rather just some branching dialogue and personality options in replies to spice things up, along with some quests where it's clear you're making a choice to do X but not Y and that changes the course of the story. I have no issue with reading and actually enjoy reading quest text.
Naunet said:Tanix said:They have to read first to even begin to input words and is it dumbly at that point or are they trying to think of relevant responses? See, at that point it is an inquiry process and not simply dumbly typing in (sure, some may, but then I never said there aren't dumb people who will act dumbly). This is not the same as someone who simply clicks highlights and brackets. I know it is a matter of taste, but there is not an equivalency in the methods. One leads the player to a result (by giving them options of bouncing balls), the other requires the player to lead themselves and discover the answer. Also, the point of inserting thesaurus, dictionaries, even some interactive AI logic systems you can reduce the problems that existed in past text input games.This gives me horrible flashbacks to my time in primary/secondary school taking multiple choice exams. I was always able to come up with interpretations of answers/questions where multiple answers could be correct and figuring out which "right" answer the test wanted was a waking nightmare.
Would really rather just some branching dialogue and personality options in replies to spice things up, along with some quests where it's clear you're making a choice to do X but not Y and that changes the course of the story. I have no issue with reading and actually enjoy reading quest text.
That is kind of the point though. Quests are supposed to be part of a game where you have to think critically, search for clues, investigate and solve a particular problem. Just reading and following a dialog where you run an errand isn't a quest, it is more of a "task". I know for me personally, if I just wanted to read a story, I would read a book, they are written far better anway. /shrug
Tanix said:Naunet said:Tanix said:They have to read first to even begin to input words and is it dumbly at that point or are they trying to think of relevant responses? See, at that point it is an inquiry process and not simply dumbly typing in (sure, some may, but then I never said there aren't dumb people who will act dumbly). This is not the same as someone who simply clicks highlights and brackets. I know it is a matter of taste, but there is not an equivalency in the methods. One leads the player to a result (by giving them options of bouncing balls), the other requires the player to lead themselves and discover the answer. Also, the point of inserting thesaurus, dictionaries, even some interactive AI logic systems you can reduce the problems that existed in past text input games.This gives me horrible flashbacks to my time in primary/secondary school taking multiple choice exams. I was always able to come up with interpretations of answers/questions where multiple answers could be correct and figuring out which "right" answer the test wanted was a waking nightmare.
Would really rather just some branching dialogue and personality options in replies to spice things up, along with some quests where it's clear you're making a choice to do X but not Y and that changes the course of the story. I have no issue with reading and actually enjoy reading quest text.
That is kind of the point though. Quests are supposed to be part of a game where you have to think critically, search for clues, investigate and solve a particular problem. Just reading and following a dialog where you run an errand isn't a quest, it is more of a "task". I know for me personally, if I just wanted to read a story, I would read a book, they are written far better anway. /shrug
I don't think one precludes the other. You can have an NPC provide hints in dialogue, but not specific directions. Consider this hypothetical example:
Overall quest goal: Track down the holy relic called the Scrolls of Remembrance and return them to the temple in the city.
Step 1: Talk to NPCs. Learn that the Scrolls of Remembrance were once kept at a small shrine in the foothills, before the War of the Revenant. Though no one is exactly sure where it was anymore since this was generations ago.
Step 2: Find the shrine amongst all the other ruins. Find a reliquary there that was broken into long ago, its contents stolen.
Step 3: At a bandit camp in the wilderness, find a note in the bandit leader's stash mentioning the old church's relics, and how they were sold to a broker named Navado in a nearby town. Note that you can find this note without having done Step 1 or Step 2 first.
Step 4: Visit town and find Navado. He's not willing to talk with you unless you bring him something of value. If you ask him what that is, he just says "Red's in fashion right now in the city"
Step 5: While killing nearby orcs or bandits, find a drop named a "ruby necklace". Note that you don't have to have the quest or know anything about it to get this drop.
Step 6: Take the necklace to Navado. He tells you that he sold the stuff from the church to a visiting mage, but he doesn't know where from. The only detail he remembers are that the mage's robes reeked of chemicals.
Step 7: In the next zone over, tucked away in the foothills, there's an alchemist's lab. The people in the village there mention it in passing dialogue. Enter the lab, find it destroyed and crawling with undead. Defeat the undead, including the mage who has become undead, and recover part of the Scrolls. Search the room and find cryptic references to his business dealings with several other mages and alchemists.
... and so on.
My point here is that making quests require critical thinking, interpretation, and knowledge of the world doesn't depend on the method used to deliver the NPC text. Regardless of whether it's keyword based or a choice in a dialogue tree, the trick is going to be simply not having the text explicitly tell people where to go and what to do. It should give clues and hints, but the player should always have to figure out the next steps with only limited information to work from.
I do like the keyword system because it's a little less easy for players to simply "click through". But I don't think it's a determining factor for the quality of quests, and we shouldn't try to conflate the two aspects.
Nephele said:Tanix said:Naunet said:Tanix said:They have to read first to even begin to input words and is it dumbly at that point or are they trying to think of relevant responses? See, at that point it is an inquiry process and not simply dumbly typing in (sure, some may, but then I never said there aren't dumb people who will act dumbly). This is not the same as someone who simply clicks highlights and brackets. I know it is a matter of taste, but there is not an equivalency in the methods. One leads the player to a result (by giving them options of bouncing balls), the other requires the player to lead themselves and discover the answer. Also, the point of inserting thesaurus, dictionaries, even some interactive AI logic systems you can reduce the problems that existed in past text input games.This gives me horrible flashbacks to my time in primary/secondary school taking multiple choice exams. I was always able to come up with interpretations of answers/questions where multiple answers could be correct and figuring out which "right" answer the test wanted was a waking nightmare.
Would really rather just some branching dialogue and personality options in replies to spice things up, along with some quests where it's clear you're making a choice to do X but not Y and that changes the course of the story. I have no issue with reading and actually enjoy reading quest text.
That is kind of the point though. Quests are supposed to be part of a game where you have to think critically, search for clues, investigate and solve a particular problem. Just reading and following a dialog where you run an errand isn't a quest, it is more of a "task". I know for me personally, if I just wanted to read a story, I would read a book, they are written far better anway. /shrug
I don't think one precludes the other. You can have an NPC provide hints in dialogue, but not specific directions. Consider this hypothetical example:
Overall quest goal: Track down the holy relic called the Scrolls of Remembrance and return them to the temple in the city.
Step 1: Talk to NPCs. Learn that the Scrolls of Remembrance were once kept at a small shrine in the foothills, before the War of the Revenant. Though no one is exactly sure where it was anymore since this was generations ago.Step 2: Find the shrine amongst all the other ruins. Find a reliquary there that was broken into long ago, its contents stolen.
Step 3: At a bandit camp in the wilderness, find a note in the bandit leader's stash mentioning the old church's relics, and how they were sold to a broker named Navado in a nearby town. Note that you can find this note without having done Step 1 or Step 2 first.
Step 4: Visit town and find Navado. He's not willing to talk with you unless you bring him something of value. If you ask him what that is, he just says "Red's in fashion right now in the city"
Step 5: While killing nearby orcs or bandits, find a drop named a "ruby necklace". Note that you don't have to have the quest or know anything about it to get this drop.
Step 6: Take the necklace to Navado. He tells you that he sold the stuff from the church to a visiting mage, but he doesn't know where from. The only detail he remembers are that the mage's robes reeked of chemicals.
Step 7: In the next zone over, tucked away in the foothills, there's an alchemist's lab. The people in the village there mention it in passing dialogue. Enter the lab, find it destroyed and crawling with undead. Defeat the undead, including the mage who has become undead, and recover part of the Scrolls. Search the room and find cryptic references to his business dealings with several other mages and alchemists.
... and so on.
My point here is that making quests require critical thinking, interpretation, and knowledge of the world doesn't depend on the method used to deliver the NPC text. Regardless of whether it's keyword based or a choice in a dialogue tree, the trick is going to be simply not having the text explicitly tell people where to go and what to do. It should give clues and hints, but the player should always have to figure out the next steps with only limited information to work from.
I do like the keyword system because it's a little less easy for players to simply "click through". But I don't think it's a determining factor for the quality of quests, and we shouldn't try to conflate the two aspects.
Still more "task" oriented. Go here, do this, follow this arrow type of instruction.
Text inputs don't do that. They don't "Direct" the player, the player has to initiate and investigate themselves. It gives questiong a sense of mystery to it, like the exploration of the unknown. With pre-set clicking dialogs, you are guided to a quests, while if there were no directions, you may have no idea there is even a quest with that NPC.
Also, how do you hide quests or create relational inquries between NPCs, etc..? You hear a conversation from two other NPCs about a third.. so how do you handle that? If you make it a trigger (ie a player by hearing that conversation, now unlocks a highlight on another NPC), and the player doesn't pay attention, they will still be rewarded with the trigger. With text input, the player can miss all kinds of quests. This is good because it again as I said, encourages people to pay attention, explore dialogs, read, watch closely to NPC chatter, look closely to notes, items, etc... that drop.
A highlight system, or clickable system invalidates this form of play which I think is integral to questing format. There should be mystery, not a task list for quests. Maybe they have a solution, but I am unsure how they are going to accomplish it with such a system and it not simply be a click through system where all interaction is directed for the player. Time will tell, but I am not encouraged by it as it feels more of the same that we get from modern day questing.
I know I beat the EQ drum a lot, but EQ questing due to text input provided hours of investigation into areas. My friend once went through neriak talking, listening to NPC chatter and found tons of quests that most people miss. There were entire story lines hidden behind subtle chatter, or even basic environmental relation to the NPC which the player had to consider when they were exploring. To this day, there are quests in EQ that were never solved. That is amazing and it brings intrigue and hope to game play. A system like VR is putting in seems like it will be limited and result in everyone knowing everything very quickly because there is no "mystery" just NPCs directing people to tasks.
Tanix said:(snipped out previous quotes for length)
Still more "task" oriented. Go here, do this, follow this arrow type of instruction.
Text inputs don't do that. They don't "Direct" the player, the player has to initiate and investigate themselves. It gives questiong a sense of mystery to it, like the exploration of the unknown. With pre-set clicking dialogs, you are guided to a quests, while if there were no directions, you may have no idea there is even a quest with that NPC.
Also, how do you hide quests or create relational inquries between NPCs, etc..? You hear a conversation from two other NPCs about a third.. so how do you handle that? If you make it a trigger (ie a player by hearing that conversation, now unlocks a highlight on another NPC), and the player doesn't pay attention, they will still be rewarded with the trigger. With text input, the player can miss all kinds of quests. This is good because it again as I said, encourages people to pay attention, explore dialogs, read, watch closely to NPC chatter, look closely to notes, items, etc... that drop.
A highlight system, or clickable system invalidates this form of play which I think is integral to questing format. There should be mystery, not a task list for quests. Maybe they have a solution, but I am unsure how they are going to accomplish it with such a system and it not simply be a click through system where all interaction is directed for the player. Time will tell, but I am not encouraged by it as it feels more of the same that we get from modern day questing.
I know I beat the EQ drum a lot, but EQ questing due to text input provided hours of investigation into areas. My friend once went through neriak talking, listening to NPC chatter and found tons of quests that most people miss. There were entire story lines hidden behind subtle chatter, or even basic environmental relation to the NPC which the player had to consider when they were exploring. To this day, there are quests in EQ that were never solved. That is amazing and it brings intrigue and hope to game play. A system like VR is putting in seems like it will be limited and result in everyone knowing everything very quickly because there is no "mystery" just NPCs directing people to tasks.
I'm not sure that we're actually talking about different things, or maybe I wasn't clear enough in my hypothetical example. Giving a player a vague clue and forcing them to figure out what to do next without clear guidance isn't the same as "Go here, do this, follow this arrow"
The big difference I see between EQ and more recent MMOs, in terms of quest delivery, wasn't the text input thing. Instead, it was that EQ didn't have a quest journal/tracker at all. There was nothing there to tell the player what the next step was. So they might talk to the dwarf in kaladim and learn that they'd be rewarded for bringing back belts and legionaire shoulderpads, but there wasn't any sort of thing on their screen sitting there reminding them of that.
For a more complicated quest like, say, the shield of the night's watch, or even one of the epics, the only thing the player had to rely on to tell them what their next steps were was their memory. or perhaps a notepad, or an external website.
So, again, I think it's important that we don't conflate things. There is truthfully not a lot of difference between [information about the quest] and information about the quest. Yes, one requires you to type, but it's still relatively obvious to someone looking at the text.
Now, if what you're proposing is that there shouldn't be *any* visual indication of what keywords to type or click at all, I'm down with that idea. I also agree that clues about quests should be presented through "overheard" dialogue and the environment, and not just on NPC responses to /hail. I'm all for quests requiring us to pay attention, and to put together clues and solve mysteries without any real guidance.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if your goal is to have quests be challenging and mysterious, rather than just following the bouncing ball (which I agree with), you probably should think a little bigger than just NPC text delivery. Even if NPC text delivery works exactly the way you're envisioning, there's still lots of other things that have to be done differently from many more recent MMOs to make that quest truly be something that people have to think about in order to solve. And I also would argue that if those things are done in the right way, the way that players "ask questions" of NPCs in dialogue doesn't actually matter all that much in the end. A vague clue is a vague clue, whether I got there by typing a question, or clicking a keyword, or clicking a dialogue option in a chat bubble. It's the content of the NPC text that really matters most, not the form factor.
Perhaps the type of quest should determine the mechanism.
Some of the suggestions here might work better on a long or complicated quest that isn't supposed to be knocked off in a few minutes anyway,
But if you get to a town and a farmer is having her sheep (or daughters) eaten by wolves I see nothing wrong with skipping the complexities and subtleties and just having the frantic woman yell out "Kill the accursed wolves for the love of the Gods - all 10 of the hairy buggers!!"
The type of short simple thing that some of us might call a "task" rather than a "quest".
Nephele said:Tanix said:(snipped out previous quotes for length)
Still more "task" oriented. Go here, do this, follow this arrow type of instruction.
Text inputs don't do that. They don't "Direct" the player, the player has to initiate and investigate themselves. It gives questiong a sense of mystery to it, like the exploration of the unknown. With pre-set clicking dialogs, you are guided to a quests, while if there were no directions, you may have no idea there is even a quest with that NPC.
Also, how do you hide quests or create relational inquries between NPCs, etc..? You hear a conversation from two other NPCs about a third.. so how do you handle that? If you make it a trigger (ie a player by hearing that conversation, now unlocks a highlight on another NPC), and the player doesn't pay attention, they will still be rewarded with the trigger. With text input, the player can miss all kinds of quests. This is good because it again as I said, encourages people to pay attention, explore dialogs, read, watch closely to NPC chatter, look closely to notes, items, etc... that drop.
A highlight system, or clickable system invalidates this form of play which I think is integral to questing format. There should be mystery, not a task list for quests. Maybe they have a solution, but I am unsure how they are going to accomplish it with such a system and it not simply be a click through system where all interaction is directed for the player. Time will tell, but I am not encouraged by it as it feels more of the same that we get from modern day questing.
I know I beat the EQ drum a lot, but EQ questing due to text input provided hours of investigation into areas. My friend once went through neriak talking, listening to NPC chatter and found tons of quests that most people miss. There were entire story lines hidden behind subtle chatter, or even basic environmental relation to the NPC which the player had to consider when they were exploring. To this day, there are quests in EQ that were never solved. That is amazing and it brings intrigue and hope to game play. A system like VR is putting in seems like it will be limited and result in everyone knowing everything very quickly because there is no "mystery" just NPCs directing people to tasks.
I'm not sure that we're actually talking about different things, or maybe I wasn't clear enough in my hypothetical example. Giving a player a vague clue and forcing them to figure out what to do next without clear guidance isn't the same as "Go here, do this, follow this arrow"
The big difference I see between EQ and more recent MMOs, in terms of quest delivery, wasn't the text input thing. Instead, it was that EQ didn't have a quest journal/tracker at all. There was nothing there to tell the player what the next step was. So they might talk to the dwarf in kaladim and learn that they'd be rewarded for bringing back belts and legionaire shoulderpads, but there wasn't any sort of thing on their screen sitting there reminding them of that.
For a more complicated quest like, say, the shield of the night's watch, or even one of the epics, the only thing the player had to rely on to tell them what their next steps were was their memory. or perhaps a notepad, or an external website.
So, again, I think it's important that we don't conflate things. There is truthfully not a lot of difference between [information about the quest] and information about the quest. Yes, one requires you to type, but it's still relatively obvious to someone looking at the text.
Now, if what you're proposing is that there shouldn't be *any* visual indication of what keywords to type or click at all, I'm down with that idea. I also agree that clues about quests should be presented through "overheard" dialogue and the environment, and not just on NPC responses to /hail. I'm all for quests requiring us to pay attention, and to put together clues and solve mysteries without any real guidance.
I guess what I'm trying to say here is that if your goal is to have quests be challenging and mysterious, rather than just following the bouncing ball (which I agree with), you probably should think a little bigger than just NPC text delivery. Even if NPC text delivery works exactly the way you're envisioning, there's still lots of other things that have to be done differently from many more recent MMOs to make that quest truly be something that people have to think about in order to solve. And I also would argue that if those things are done in the right way, the way that players "ask questions" of NPCs in dialogue doesn't actually matter all that much in the end. A vague clue is a vague clue, whether I got there by typing a question, or clicking a keyword, or clicking a dialogue option in a chat bubble. It's the content of the NPC text that really matters most, not the form factor.
As I said LoTRO had quests without any real indicators, but that is not the key difference I am getting at with text input.
If you do no text input interaction, then you have to provide the player some form of direction be it through highlights/brackets OR putting ALL information for the quest available in the text.
The benefit of a text input is you can offer no leading indicators and the player will have to query based on context. So, you could walk up, hail an NPC and the NPC might just talk about random things with no real quest available, but... it might have something depending on the context and that context might be subtle or direct. Add in the cross trigger inputs (using knowledge from another source and providing it to the NPC) and you have a system where you have to investigate.
I think that is the key point I am making, not difficulty directly, but the mystery. You can limit such by not highlighting, but you will be forced to provide all quest directions in the original text displayed. With text inputs, the player is forced to pull out those directions through investigative query.
Edit:
To give you an example Nephele, think of this...
NPC A and B in City 1 are talking about a specific thing (an event, an item, etc...) and in this discussion, they mention something about NPC C in City 2 concerning this, maybe to reference how he knew something about this or that, and when they bring up "x/y/z" to him when they visted the city, he would go into a rage attacking them and running them off. What they were talking about could be a general context about something which would cause the player to consider maybe seeking this NPC out in City 2 to investigate.
Once in City 2, to the player then needs to look around for this NPC using context of the discussion by the previous NPCs. Maybe they subtly mention what/where he might be based on the interaction "All I did was bring up x/y/z and he came after me with that hot iron likely to burn me through he did!", so we have a hint that he may be a blacksmith or something along those lines. This is a clue of where to look in the city and maybe his name is mentioned, maybe a nick name is brought up to which the player needs to deduce this by walking around listening to various conversations in City 2 (if he is angry over subtle things, maybe he has a reputation for such as well?).
So, finally you find this person you think is the guy. Now if you just normally talk to him with a hail, he simply talks to you in a general way, or maybe waves you off saying he is busy... BUT... if you take what you learned previously from NPC A and B and then question him on that context, phrase/keyword... He triggers, angry at you and attacks. You then fight him, maybe beating him down to a certain amount before he gives up and then tells you more about the issue. Maybe... you kill him and only find a note with a clue about another NPC and some cryptic information.
From there, you have to go back to NPC A and B, using that cryptic information and question them, which then opens up dialog you would never know existed because the trigger is something you can only glean from the note, and the quest moves on...
How do you achieve this interaction and "hidden" content with highlights, clicking or even just a read through?
I mean, I can think of some ways, but it would require lots of flagging (ie you hear a conversation and it flags you), etc.. but then there are issues with people getting flagged when they had no idea they were. There may be a solution, but do you see the issue here in terms of hiding quests and how unless you are paying attention, you won't know there is even a quest there?
To me that is an exciting system, mysterious and will give hope to play in towns for a long time (as EQ did with trying to see if there were quests in the area).