Bioware games already employ dialogue systems where player characters say things only vaguely corresponding to what you actually choose them to say. Taking control out of the player's hands completely would be a logical next step for them. That would hurt the replayability though so maybe let the RNG decide what lines are chosen?Yahtzee Croshaw said:Maybe there could be some conversations where we aren't prompted for a choice and our character automatically voices the lines reflective of the kinds of options the player had been taking up to then.
Yeah....there's a reason text parsers stopped being a common game interface. It's not just player annoyance either. It may seem like a nice idea to just process everything dynamically, but the narrative effects are usually disastrous.HumanShale said:A sentence would become the same thing as an action in the world such as hitting someone with a stick.
I don't know about that. In my experience, table-top games tend to be split between the players who want to role-play and the ones that would rather just win. They're also inherently multiplayer and tend not to have good match-making or efficient netcode.bkd69 said:There you'll find the role playing you're looking for.
That's why I recommended Soth, where the game exists more as conversation between the GM and players. Fiasco is another good alternative, as there's GM, no actual combat, and the events are determined solely by dice roll, but narrated and expanded by the players. Inspectres takes a more traditional relationship between GM and players, but who drives narrative and storyline is determined by whether the players make their rolls, at which point they build on the story, or if they fail, at which point the GM drives the story.I don't know about that. In my experience, table-top games tend to be split between the players who want to role-play and the ones that would rather just win. They're also inherently multiplayer and tend not to have good match-making or efficient netcode.bkd69 said:There you'll find the role playing you're looking for.
Responding to the actual article, I think the reason RPGs don't seem to have much role-playing nowadays is because walking simulators and other types of adventure games have gotten good enough at actually immersive experiences that they now serve to highlight what other genres aren't doing as well. I'll admit that I never played the original DnD, but even the influential table-top RPGs such as DnD 3.x and Shadowrun have had the issue that the characters are primarily battle machines that need to survive whatever the game master comes up with before worrying about what they're character feels about the current situation. This isn't just due to the games themselves, either. It's very common for players to primarily want to murder things and do little else.
That's because of the players though, not the game. I run 4 groups in total, 3 D&D 5th and one Shadowrun 5th group, and none of them are of the murder-hobo variety. The groups I'm a player in aren't of that variety either, except perhaps the Warhammer 40K: Only War one but then again you're a military grunt in that one.kimiyoribaka said:It's very common for players to primarily want to murder things and do little else.
This reminded me of one of the reasons I loved Dragon Age Origins. Each character had a like/dislike bar that showed you how they felt towards you. You could alter how they felt depending on the actions you took and the conversations you had with them. It gave the conversations a tangible feel; You felt closer to the characters because you had to figure out their interests and sense of humour in order to max out the bar. You would even make some decisions based on how it made some party members feel. There were a few in game buffs to the characters for winning their loyalty but frankly I didn't even notice the difference.fractal_butterfly said:I think the main problem are the rigid multiple choice dialogue systems themselves. You can't have a natural conversation with that. Also in all RPGs, NPCs do not have anything like emotions or relationships. They should have something, that reflects their attitude towards the player character(s), and maybe each other. They could love or hate the player, could be loyal or treacherous towards him, could fear him or not take him seriously. The right conversation options would then shift these values. A little bit like in the Sims or Stardew Valley. You could then unlock new dialogue options, but you would close up others.
Exactly. Until CRPG's can be programed with AI to allow unscripted interactions with NPC's, there will always be limitations with the "Role" part role playing games on computers and consoles.Synigma said:Also:
Do you want AI? Because this is how you get AI!