About games who's protagonists you have no dialog control over...

[TakeyB0y2]

I started writing out the scenes and dialog for a game I conceived recently. This game will probably never, ever be made, but I that's besides the point for me. The direction I'm going in is that this game would be about the same length as your average Bioware RPG and would be the first in a trilogy. The game plays out as an action adventure with some free-roaming elements. However, the game doesn't feature dialog options you may find featured in games like Mass Effect, Elder Scrolls, Fallout and even Persona 3 and 4. At the moment I find it very hard for me to write out something like this when I have the protagonist already established in my mind and I find myself writing all dialog to reflect this single image. That's not to say there aren't story-effecting choices that can be made in the game, they're just few and infrequent.

My question is... Does this seem kinda backwards by today's standards? Is a game full of dialog options something everyone is expecting these days? Are games that are 30 hours long, with linear conversations and cutscenes that cannot be interacted with, considered boring or even just outright lazy, out-dated design?

 

[brunothepig]

Absolutely not, by my standards anyway. Dialog options are offered as a way to role-play, which is the root of RPG's, but by no means necessary in todays versions. I always felt the story suffered from dialog options, it can make your character seem inconsistent. Although I'm actually hard pressed to think of any RPG (besides Mount & Blade, which has no story to speak of anyway) that has no dialog options. Morrowind is pretty devoid of them, only a few events make you choose what to say, but then Morrowind is almost ten years old.

I'd probably play a game like that just for a change of pace. Of course, if you're just writing it for yourself it hardly matters anyway I guess.

 

[Jak2364]

I don't think it's backwards at all. Final Fantasy does it. Plenty/almost all JRPGs do it. Now, if you're going for a Bioware style RPG, then yes, it is slightly backwards. But it would actually be interesting to have a JRPG with WRPG Storytelling elements, or the other way around, in my opinion.

 

[Shadowstar38]

I've gathered that people like RPG's because they can project themselves to the voiceless character. This doesnt work with something like Mass Effect because it feels like Shepard is a defined character with a personality and Im manipulating his dialog to get red or blue points.

If you write the game well enough that the player doesnt mind playing as that character for 30 hours then it wont be boring. It works for Batman.

 

[nukethetuna]

There's nothing wrong with a protagonist who has his own personality and stances. In these cases, you're watching a (hopefully good!) story unravel, you're just along for the ride (and gameplay).

Dialogue choices can help a lot if you want your game to be super immersive for the player as a character in the world, but games without them certainly aren't boring, and I would never accuse a game of having a linear story. Mostly because it should mean its one story branch is significantly more developed.

 

[internetzealot1]

Its always been backwards, but no one really cares.

 

[Irridium]

It's not backwards at all. It means your character is a character with his own personality, morality system, character... yeah.

Not bad at all. Just make sure he's done well.

 

[Thaius]

Nope.

The problem with that typical WRPG model where you get to make all the big decisions and dictate the protagonist's personality is that the more control is given to the player, the less control the developer has over his story, characters, and world. Bioware overcomes this more effectively than most, but the effect is still there. By giving creative freedom to the player, you limit your own. If you want a developed, complex character, feel absolutely no obligation to include dialogue choices.

Most of the greatest interactive stories ever told had little to no dialogue/character choices (various Final Fantasy games, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Shadow of the Colossus), because they had full creative freedom over their creation. If you need that for your vision, don't give it to the player.

EDIT: Unfortunately, large amounts of cutscenes and dialogue are being seen now as lazy, bad game design, but that's incredibly stupid. Essentially, it amounts to the idea that video game stories are only good if they take full advantage of the medium's unique properties, that is, interactivity. That a good story told without the interaction of the player is actually a bad story. It's stupid, it's bad aesthetic understanding, and it's painfully obvious exactly how much so if you try applying it to other mediums. So don't worry about it; haters gonna' hate, but you're in the right here.

 

[MurderousToaster]

I hate it. Definitely the worst example is Gordon Freeman. The **** just won't shut the hell up.

 

[Defense]

There's nothing wrong with no dialogue options. There's something wrong with having a lot of dialogue options that have no impact whatsoever, Mass Effect style.

Personally, I like it when the ending is defined by what you do, not what you say.

 

[zefiewings]

No, though it has to be a good character.

I have never considered stories with a "pre-made" protagonist to actually be an RPG, despite official definition, whatever that is. I still love RPGs that aren't,by my standards, RPGs. I just regard them differently.

Because, to me, just choosing what armor they wear, or whatever the case, has nothing at all to do with choosing their character or role.

So, if that made no sense; Yes, it may still be a great game. Yes, it does limit somewhat on actual role play elements.

 

[MassiveGeek]

Well, no. I could thoroughly enjoy Bioshock despite the lack of dialogue from the main character, and like here, you got choices still, so you're not just being dragged along without any opportunity to take action.

It sounds like a cool game - if it ever gets made, I'd buy it.

 

[Savagezion]

Nope.

The problem with that typical WRPG model where you get to make all the big decisions and dictate the protagonist's personality is that the more control is given to the player, the less control the developer has over his story, characters, and world. Bioware overcomes this more effectively than most, but the effect is still there. By giving creative freedom to the player, you limit your own. If you want a developed, complex character, feel absolutely no obligation to include dialogue choices.

Most of the greatest interactive stories ever told had little to no dialogue/character choices (various Final Fantasy games, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Shadow of the Colossus), because they had full creative freedom over their creation. If you need that for your vision, don't give it to the player.

EDIT: Unfortunately, large amounts of cutscenes and dialogue are being seen now as lazy, bad game design, but that's incredibly stupid. Essentially, it amounts to the idea that video game stories are only good if they take full advantage of the medium's unique properties, that is, interactivity. That a good story told without the interaction of the player is actually a bad story. It's stupid, it's bad aesthetic understanding, and it's painfully obvious exactly how much so if you try applying it to other mediums. So don't worry about it; haters gonna' hate, but you're in the right here.

I wouldn't say that adding player choices takes away from the writers creative liberties. The fact of the matter is every part of any game has to be scripted and good writing is good writing. If I make a game where one of my choices I offer the player is whether or not to pull the plug on someone in a coma who was a witness to an event, I could script it so that if they pull the plug some dialogue options could harbor resentment from some of the NPCs. However, this also would result in currency or some small immediate reward come towards the player. (I would probably use story benefits and not resources as the reward but resources are viable. For example, having them be in this state is risky for some reason like they act as a living beacon for "the bad guys" to follow or something.) Now, if you don't pull the plug:
- 20% chance the victim wakes up later in the game at predesignated time. (They end up being of great use to your characters progression if this happens. Perhaps skip an side sequence.)
- 60% chance that the victim doesn't wake up and the family responsible goes bankrupt due to hospital bills as the story continues.
- 20% chance whatever they witnessed catches up to them and kills them in the hospital anyways.

Some dialogue options after making the decision could harbor resentment from some of the NPCs either way you go. One way does offer a benefit but so does the other. Both sides demand sacrifice. Neither choice constitutes bad writing. If anything the writer must be willing to look at his own story from multiple angles and not just 1. So it actually takes a better writer to write good from multiple angles.

This is not to say that linear writing is bad, but story does not suffer from offering the player/audience choice. That is only true based on how good the writer is. A poor writer can slam out a linear story. A good story can be examined from many different angles by the audience and choice in the universe/game allows them to do so. What would have happened if Romeo hadn't killed Tybalt? We won't know because that isn't how the story is told. Shakespeare exploring that idea wouldn't undermine the writing of Shakespear's tale, but rather may enhance it by giving us a different and perhaps deeper look into some of the characters particularly Tybalt himself. If you are a fan of Tybalt's character, this is a positive for you and you would probably opt to hear more about the version where he doesn't die over the one where he does.

Again I will echo that linearity has it's place as you put it but I wouldn't say that a story is hampered by allowing the audience to explore your characters and tale from their own perspectives and not yours. I think Shadow of the Colossus is a great linear story, however, not enough is known about the world they live in and everything leading up to those events to create a truly good branching story. All you get to know about anything is that this chick is dead at the beginning and Wander knows the spirit can bring her back. You can make a story with good impact with those details but not a story with choice that will mean anything with it.
I agree with you up to the point where games with choice begin getting discredited in comparison. Overall, the OP's approach is a great way to develop a story. However, there is no clear way of writing a better story than someone else. That comes to literary ability, not the form in which you tell the story. Techniques differ but quality is not inherently dependent on technique.

 

[Vault101]

nope not all games need to be RPG's and not all games need ot be shooters or have silent protagonists

john marston from read dead works great as having his own personality

I dont agree with have a siltent protagonist without good reason

 

[Thaius]

Nope.

The problem with that typical WRPG model where you get to make all the big decisions and dictate the protagonist's personality is that the more control is given to the player, the less control the developer has over his story, characters, and world. Bioware overcomes this more effectively than most, but the effect is still there. By giving creative freedom to the player, you limit your own. If you want a developed, complex character, feel absolutely no obligation to include dialogue choices.

Most of the greatest interactive stories ever told had little to no dialogue/character choices (various Final Fantasy games, Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Beyond Good and Evil, Shadow of the Colossus), because they had full creative freedom over their creation. If you need that for your vision, don't give it to the player.

EDIT: Unfortunately, large amounts of cutscenes and dialogue are being seen now as lazy, bad game design, but that's incredibly stupid. Essentially, it amounts to the idea that video game stories are only good if they take full advantage of the medium's unique properties, that is, interactivity. That a good story told without the interaction of the player is actually a bad story. It's stupid, it's bad aesthetic understanding, and it's painfully obvious exactly how much so if you try applying it to other mediums. So don't worry about it; haters gonna' hate, but you're in the right here.

I wouldn't say that adding player choices takes away from the writers creative liberties. The fact of the matter is every part of any game has to be scripted and good writing is good writing. If I make a game where one of my choices I offer the player is whether or not to pull the plug on someone in a coma who was a witness to an event, I could script it so that if they pull the plug some dialogue options could harbor resentment from some of the NPCs. However, this also would result in currency or some small immediate reward come towards the player. (I would probably use story benefits and not resources as the reward but resources are viable. For example, having them be in this state is risky for some reason like they act as a living beacon for "the bad guys" to follow or something.) Now, if you don't pull the plug:
- 20% chance the victim wakes up later in the game at predesignated time. (They end up being of great use to your characters progression if this happens. Perhaps skip an side sequence.)
- 60% chance that the victim doesn't wake up and the family responsible goes bankrupt due to hospital bills as the story continues.
- 20% chance whatever they witnessed catches up to them and kills them in the hospital anyways.

Some dialogue options after making the decision could harbor resentment from some of the NPCs either way you go. One way does offer a benefit but so does the other. Both sides demand sacrifice. Neither choice constitutes bad writing. If anything the writer must be willing to look at his own story from multiple angles and not just 1. So it actually takes a better writer to write good from multiple angles.

This is not to say that linear writing is bad, but story does not suffer from offering the player/audience choice. That is only true based on how good the writer is. A poor writer can slam out a linear story. A good story can be examined from many different angles by the audience and choice in the universe/game allows them to do so. What would have happened if Romeo hadn't killed Tybalt? We won't know because that isn't how the story is told. Shakespeare exploring that idea wouldn't undermine the writing of Shakespear's tale, but rather may enhance it by giving us a different and perhaps deeper look into some of the characters particularly Tybalt himself. If you are a fan of Tybalt's character, this is a positive for you and you would probably opt to hear more about the version where he doesn't die over the one where he does.

Again I will echo that linearity has it's place as you put it but I wouldn't say that a story is hampered by allowing the audience to explore your characters and tale from their own perspectives and not yours. I think Shadow of the Colossus is a great linear story, however, not enough is known about the world they live in and everything leading up to those events to create a truly good branching story. All you get to know about anything is that this chick is dead at the beginning and Wander knows the spirit can bring her back. You can make a story with good impact with those details but not a story with choice that will mean anything with it.
I agree with you up to the point where games with choice begin getting discredited in comparison. Overall, the OP's approach is a great way to develop a story. However, there is no clear way of writing a better story than someone else. That comes to literary ability, not the form in which you tell the story. Techniques differ but quality is not inherently dependent on technique.

I am not saying a non-linear story is inherently worse. But I think you are overlooking a particular aspect of how this works.

Take a look at Mass Effect. Very well-written series with pretty good characters, all except Shepard. Shepard cannot have struggles, complex emotions, or meaningful epiphanies, because you are entirely in control of his actions.

I'm actually writing and directing an independent RPG right now, and we tossed around the idea of letting the player control some of the outcomes. But then we realized how some of that would work and the effect it would have on the work as a whole. If the player could choose whether to make the big good or evil choice at the end, the evil choice would undermine the entire point of the story and negate everything we had built it to mean. If the player's actions could define whether certain nations joined your cause later on, that would also put the ending, and thus the point of the story, in jeopardy. We considered letting the player's actions and dialogue decide with whom a romance would occur, but then we realized we wanted to do something very specific with the romance to integrate it very intensely into the rest of the story, something that simply could not be done if we just allowed the player to choose whoever he wanted.

Of course you can still write a good story if the player has choice. But not only is it difficult, but some things are nearly impossible, such as giving the story a particular message since the player can easily undermine it with his/her choices. This is why Mass Effect 2 reserved all the emotional impact of the story for the supporting cast, because Shepard's versatility of character simply did not allow for any sort of emotional or ideological change because the player would have to personally choose to change it, and that possibility would be near-impossible to fully integrate into the story in that one possible scenario.

So do not think I'm saying games with choice are inherently weaker in story than linear games; there are ways in which they can actually be far more powerful. But both approaches have their weaknesses; the former has less opportunities to powerfully incite introspection in the player, and the latter has far more pervasive difficulties with complexities of story and character.

 

[TakeyB0y2]

Posted this before going to work, come back seeing more replies than expected. Thanks everyone Thing is, is while I was writing this story down, I was actually thinking about how the industry has changed an hows players likely feel about cutscenes now and found myself slightly discouraged from what I was doing but... I feel better now, thanks everyone

It sounds like a cool game - if it ever gets made, I'd buy it.

I've barely said anything about it, but thanks

I'm actually writing and directing an independent RPG right now, and we tossed around the idea of letting the player control some of the outcomes. But then we realized how some of that would work and the effect it would have on the work as a whole. If the player could choose whether to make the big good or evil choice at the end, the evil choice would undermine the entire point of the story and negate everything we had built it to mean. If the player's actions could define whether certain nations joined your cause later on, that would also put the ending, and thus the point of the story, in jeopardy. We considered letting the player's actions and dialogue decide with whom a romance would occur, but then we realized we wanted to do something very specific with the romance to integrate it very intensely into the rest of the story, something that simply could not be done if we just allowed the player to choose whoever he wanted.

That is actually one of the problems I came across with writing. I want the choices to have an impact, but at the same time they can't cause a discrepancy throughout the trilogy.

The first major choice comes actually at the beginning of the game and has a rather large impact on the entire story. If you've ever heard of Shin Megami Tensei: If..., the choice kinda works the same; the protagonist has to choose a partner who will accompany them throughout the rest of the game. In the beginning the protagonist is introduced to his potential partners and each of them also gives their view points on the situation at hand and how they think it should be dealt with, and while the protagonist doesn't have to go through with their partner's plan by the end of the game, this cannot occur without significant conflict and could result in the protagonist having to go it alone for the last leg of the journey along with several setbacks.

I haven't really played out any other major choices yet, but I defiantly want the player to have control over the story here and there. I've been revising parts of synopsis here and there, so I still got a lot of work to do.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I personally prefer not to have multiple dialogue options when I play games. Usually I feel like if the writers have to write the dialogue for every scene 4 different times depending on how you're playing the character then the dialogue suffers for it, and can end up seeming kind of disjointed. Better to just have a single characterization for the protagonist, and write the dialogue from that point of view, because at least that way it'll all make more sense in context.

 

[Savagezion]

-Snip-

I am not saying a non-linear story is inherently worse. But I think you are overlooking a particular aspect of how this works.

Take a look at Mass Effect. Very well-written series with pretty good characters, all except Shepard. Shepard cannot have struggles, complex emotions, or meaningful epiphanies, because you are entirely in control of his actions.

I disagree. Anything you put in a a linear game, you can also put in a non-linear game. Rather than give the player the choice of whether or not to have these struggles, emotions, and epiphanies you choose how he handles them instead. The choice creates a branch but all branches lead to the same place. HOWEVER, those choices influence other choices later and you could even have some choices make other viable branches in the game get severed or even have new ones pop up. Say that each choice assigns a variable to the player and then other possible choices later on are "if" looped back to that variable which could even trigger new events that can only be activated if a specific variable is assigned to the player. By having sex with Ashley early on, the player is asign the IS_PREGNANT variable. In act 2, you could have a callback where "if IS_PREGNANT=true" then a scene triggers where you discuss what to do. When the scene is over, the game resumes where it left off. if IS_PREGNANT=false, it just skips the scene entirely and ignores the "bookmark" for the scene. Maybe the player chooses not to be involved in kids life, maybe they choose to be. This would be another variable. But these are running along side what is the quest, just the quest has spots reserved for these scenes. These are more like "segways" from the main quest but ultimately will be vieed as part of the quest.

I'm actually writing and directing an independent RPG right now, and we tossed around the idea of letting the player control some of the outcomes. But then we realized how some of that would work and the effect it would have on the work as a whole. If the player could choose whether to make the big good or evil choice at the end, the evil choice would undermine the entire point of the story and negate everything we had built it to mean. If the player's actions could define whether certain nations joined your cause later on, that would also put the ending, and thus the point of the story, in jeopardy. We considered letting the player's actions and dialogue decide with whom a romance would occur, but then we realized we wanted to do something very specific with the romance to integrate it very intensely into the rest of the story, something that simply could not be done if we just allowed the player to choose whoever he wanted.

Of course you can still write a good story if the player has choice. But not only is it difficult, but some things are nearly impossible, such as giving the story a particular message since the player can easily undermine it with his/her choices. This is why Mass Effect 2 reserved all the emotional impact of the story for the supporting cast, because Shepard's versatility of character simply did not allow for any sort of emotional or ideological change because the player would have to personally choose to change it, and that possibility would be near-impossible to fully integrate into the story in that one possible scenario.

So do not think I'm saying games with choice are inherently weaker in story than linear games; there are ways in which they can actually be far more powerful. But both approaches have their weaknesses; the former has less opportunities to powerfully incite introspection in the player, and the latter has far more pervasive difficulties with complexities of story and character.

I agree that it is much harder and that you do need to keep the direction of the game on course especially if it is a story driven game. I wouldn't say that giving the story a message is nearly impossible with choice. That comes down to technique. One thing I applaud Mass Effect for that many chastise it for was that they had a story in mind and a lot of the dialogue choices from the player are there aesthetically more than for actual "choice". It allows you to give Shepard a "tone" to his/her personally. The dialogue wheel is more about character development than it is about branching the story/problem solving. It was just a technique Bioware tried and people liked it for the most part. Now, that does give the player more control over the character's internal structure but it also helps the game's protagonist be adjustable to the social paradigm / level of interest in the story for the player. I won't go much further with Mass Effect I just thought I would bring that up because if you take that out of Mass Effect, you have ~8-10 choices to make in Mass Effect 1&2 combined. Most of which is how you do something, not if you do something.
I mention that because perhaps you are looking to put choice in the wrong places in your game if it is undermining the message. I see choice as something that should help the player personalize their character, not the main quest. (Although, that is a viable option.) Really you as the desgner have the ability to choose how choice would be implemented. I am not saying you should definitely include choice, just addressing that the technique matters. How choice is involved and interwoven into the game should be based on what the game is trying to do. I am assuming you guys decided to cut it because you don't see a clear reason to include it and that is fine too.

My main point is that if you want to have choice and a strong message, it is possible. Look at Bioshock. Bioshock is a great example of missed opportunity with offering choice to the player yet retaining your message. Imagine if you actually had the option to go through the entire game without plasmids and that using plasmids would actually have negative effects on you as a trade off for more power. (Hell, I only use them for obstacles anyways really.) As well the little sister choice has no gameplay weight behind it. Alcohol makes you drunk for 5 seconds, hardly a difficult decision should alcohol be the only option around to heal. When you add up all these little things that pull away from choice in the game, it adds up. Yet none of these things would really effect the message behind it. However, this is choice in mechanics and not choice in the story itself.

I want to single this part out:

This is why Mass Effect 2 reserved all the emotional impact of the story for the supporting cast, because Shepard's versatility of character simply did not allow for any sort of emotional or ideological change because the player would have to personally choose to change it, and that possibility would be near-impossible to fully integrate into the story in that one possible scenario.

Part of the problem I am finding I am having in expressing myself is due to the fact I don't know what kind of game you are doing or an accurate game to compare it to. See, I don't believe Mass Effect 2's story is a parallel to yours and this is more an example you are using. They could have had all of Shepard's choices take a turn into say, depression or Narcissism - or really whatever they wanted. (However, that would have undermined what they were aiming for with their game) We will just go with depression though. By having all of the decisions be based in that depression you can explore that emotion even deeper and offer the player extra content or (for 1 playthrough types) a way to make their character more relative to their outlook thus identifying more with the player character than they would have otherwise. I have a problem with a lot of JRPGs, not because they are linear but because I cannot really identify with the characters because they are so far out there.

Even in poorly written games that uses choice as a gimmick instead of a tool (inFamous) choice still manages to further explore the idea behind the game even if only a little. However, most of those games don't have a message that can be undermined which is probably why it is that they opt to use choice as a gimmick in the first place.

Well, hell, I hope that isn't too scattered. I have looked over this post a few times before submitting it and all of it is relevant. I do have a point in there it is just really hard to ball it up into one cohesive thought that directly corresponds to what you are talking about. I need every one of those examples or else I would have deleted them.

 

[agentorange98]

Arkham City and Arkham Asylum, Just Cause 2, Saints Row 2 and 3, Fucking Bioshock, Red Dead Redemption, Assassin's Creed none of these had dialogue branching options so no you don't need them