You Got Turn-Based Chocolate In My Real-Time Peanut Butter

The whole idea behind this Vespers project thingy is to take a rich textual world created in interactive fiction and extrude it, so to speak, into three visual dimensions. As I've discovered, a whole mess of issues arise when moving from the predominantly discrete world of IF to the largely continuous world of 3D. That applies, of course, to space: in IF, space is divided into discrete locations, with little to no functional representation of spacial relationships within those locations, while in 3D, space is represented on a more familiar continuous scale. Likewise, it applies to time: rare exceptions aside, IF is turn-based with discrete time steps, while first-person 3D games are real-time and continuous.

The question is, can a game really be both at the same time?

In terms of space, that's not really a difficult stretch. Most locations in IF are just discrete representations of a location in 3D; a kitchen, a bedroom, a church can all be defined by walls and doorways in 3D to produce the same effect as in IF. Outdoor or more abstract locations can be a little trickier, but through the use of invisible, arbitrary borders one can functionally define locations such as "outside the calefactory", "base of the bell tower", or "garden", to produce the same effect. Dealing with spatial relationships within locations has its implementation challenges, but nothing that can't be addressed by a few ground rules that can be tweaked based on playtesting and feedback.

Time, however, is a bit less straightforward.

The turn-based nature of IF is something that is tightly integrated into game design and gameplay mechanics. It's probably fair to say that this is, at least in part, a reflection of the history of the genre, going to back to the command-line interface and early computational limitations. It's also probably related to the nature of the medium and interface; reading and typing text, and thinking through sometimes complex puzzles, is better suited to a more relaxed, turn-based interface. It creates a challenge for authors trying to model time-limited situations in their IF games, with the typical solution being a turn counter and forcing the player to resolve an issue within X number of turns. This can work to create a sense of urgency in players, although in some cases it can come across as an artificial limitation.

Some authors have tried using IF systems that operate in real-time; although I don't recall trying any of these myself, my sense is that the scarcity of these games is a reflection of the popularity of this approach.

Which leads, I guess, to the next question: if that's the case, why try to do something like that with Vespers?

The answer is that I'm not. Instead of being truly turn-based or truly real-time, Vespers will actually be something of a hybrid, although in practice it will play closer to a turn-based game. The player can move in real-time, but for the most part it will resemble moving about within a world where time is essentially in an idle loop, advancing predominantly (but not entirely) upon player input. That input could be the entry of a command (like in traditional IF), or it could be the result of movement (such as entry into a new location).

As an example, take the interaction with NPCs. When the player first encounters Lucca, for instance, he is on the floor in Matteo's room, scratching at a flagstone in the floor. If the player does not interact with Lucca, he will just continue to do what he is doing, maintaining his "idle" state of scratching at the stone. We've created a series of animations for Lucca during these "idle" times -- scratching at the floor, sitting up to rub his sore hands, wiping the tears in his eyes, and so on. These animations play at random intervals to give the appearance of a living, active character, even though he is essentially just waiting for either (a) the player to interact with him, or (b) some other game event to trigger his next action or task. If the player does interact with him, once the interaction is finished he simply goes back to doing what he was doing, scratching at the floor.

The result is a game world that is predominantly reactive, but it remains to be seen if this comes across as a little too passive. Note, however, that the world won't be 100% reactive in this sense; there are still some situations where we cannot always wait for the player before advancing time.

The most obvious example of this is an action sequence; in Vespers, for instance, there is the tense scene with the wolves in the garden. In the IF game, the player is given a handful of turns to work out a solution to the mess -- but how to implement this in pseudo-real-time? Forcing players to think and type fast would not be an ideal solution. Instead, the solution will be to implement a surrogate for the "turn". The surrogate will take into account all possible actions (and inactions) of the player, including the typing of commands and any movement.

There are a couple of tricky situations with this approach. For instance, with respect to player movement, how much movement should represent a "turn"? Then there is the command line entry window: should the advancement of time be suspended while waiting for the player to finish typing? Should a time limit be placed on text entry? Or should text entry be cancelled if no keys are pressed after a certain period of time? Finally, there is the issue of player inaction, and whether time should advance or loop continuously while the player sits idle.

These are all issues that need to be worked out through playtesting and then tweaked as needed. In the end, however, the result will be a game that has elements of both turn-based and real-time gameplay, although functionally it will probably be closer to the former than the latter.

The most interesting part of the experiment will be to see which parts of the system work and which do not, and then using that information to refine the mechanics once we move beyond Vespers and on to the next project.

Embracing My Inner Nerd

So what, I couldn't stand my state-issued license plate. Never could remember it to save my life. I know it's hard to believe, but this was the first thing that came to mind when I thought about a new one, and it was available. I think I was actually surprised to learn it was still available, although in hindsight, I realize how additionally nerdy it is to admit that.

The puzzled looks I get, of course, far outnumber the acknowledgements.

In fact, I hadn't had any acknowledgements, tacit or otherwise, until about a week ago. I was walking back to my car after a meeting and saw from afar an envelope under my wiper blade. Naturally, I thought it was a parking ticket, and was annoyed. But up close, I saw it was just an empty envelope someone put there onto which was scribbled:


I thought that was kinda cool. And by cool, I mean exceedingly nerdy.

Naturally, my car was parked outside the campus engineering building at the time. I'm just saying.

Conversation: They're All Talking (About It)

I guess conversation is where it's at these days. Recently I began a series of blogs on conversation mechanics and how interactive fiction games can perhaps show the mainstream game industry how to do better dialogue (starting here, continuing here, and most recently here). Others have also recently jumped in on the action.

Over on Gamasutra, an article written by Brent Ellison popped up not long ago to define dialog systems because, as he says, "very little literature has addressed the mechanics behind character interaction in games."

Ellison essentially covers the basic mechanics of different dialogue systems in games, including branching and non-branching dialogue, hub-and-spokes dialogue, and even parser-driven dialogue. He does a fair enough job of summarizing the more common systems, although he seems to focus primarily on interface and doesn't quite venture into the more interesting territory of the mechanics required to produce smooth, immersive, dynamic dialogue. It's more of a top-level view, which is fine, but I'd really like to see more people talking about how to make dialogue better through more carefully designed mechanics. It's kind of like describing Galatea as simply an example of an ASK/TELL dialogue system, without getting into the finer details under the hood that make the game shine.

Speaking of which, I found it especially disappointing that his description of parser-driven systems never made any mention of interactive fiction; his only two examples of this type of system were Eliza and Façade. It's fair enough to discuss Eliza as a pioneering example of parser-driven interaction, but Façade, while a fascinating experiment, did not exactly come across as a shining example of the power of parser-driven input. I found Façade to be a success in many aspects, although the parser was not one of them. It's unfortunate that Ellison failed to mention any of the great examples of dialogue in interactive fiction in an article like this since, as I've said, I think a lot of mainstream games could learn some important lessons about conversation from IF.

Around the same time, over on the Iron Tower Studio forum, Vince D. Weller tossed some ideas around with Gareth Fouche and came up with an interesting post that summarized dialogue systems in RPG games (thanks to Scorpia for pointing it out). It starts out with a nod to the adventure game genre (its current 'comatose husk' notwithstanding) and the use of keyword (or topic-based) interaction, and proceeding from there to describe typical dialogue tree structure. What's nice about the post is that he goes into some detail about the strengths and weaknesses of the different approaches, including a familiar discussion about the different shortcomings of topic-based and dialogue tree systems. He also includes a mention of a system that incorporates expressive tone with keywords, such as was tried with the game Daggerfall (which I have not played). Although it sounds like it did not fully succeed at this, it is interesting how this mirrors the approach used in some IF games, like Adam Cadre’s Varicella from 1999. Although it would have been nice to see some cross-genre discussion, it was nevertheless a nice discussion of dialogue as it relates specifically to the RPG genre. With some additional research, it would make a nice complement to the Gamasutra article.

Dialogue systems are an interesting aspect of computer games that, for the most part, use similar interfaces and follow similar mechanics across different genres. I think developers and players are beginning to long for systems that produce more dynamic, nuanced conversations, and yet IF is a genre that continues to be largely overlooked. Although the adventure game genre (and IF in particular) is perhaps not what it used to be, I wouldn't quite call it "comatose", as there are still some creative authors out there making games that push boundaries and test new systems. Some work well and some don't. One of the main reasons for this series of blogs is to explore some of those experiments in IF, including how authors have taken the basic systems and tinkered with them to generate more dynamic conversations that flow smoothly and account for changing context. These systems can easily work in genres outside of IF, as long as the skill and effort are there.

No More Slamdance

Overheard from Jonathan Blow, he of Braid development fame, via Sam Roberts: the Slamdance Games Festival is cancelled, and appears likely to be no more. No big surprise there, but it's unfortunate nevertheless. What a startling and swift fall into oblivion, triggered entirely by one little controversial entry.

It's a shame because, as one commenter noted, it was a good way for indies to get exposure outside of traditional gaming circles. Aaron Reed's report of his experiences there pushing his interactive fiction game "Whom the Telling Changed" was great stuff, especially the game transcript analysis he provided. Other shows are picking up the slack, like IndieCade, but there was still something about Slamdance being in Park City along with the Sundance festival that made it seem bigger than "just" a gamer's event.

Conversation Sophistication

I used to think that the only way we will see good, satisfying conversations in games is if some developer comes up with a combination of a highly advanced parser, capable of accepting a broad range of user input, and sophisticated AI code that can dynamically respond to this input. However, a more careful examination of some recent interactive fiction games has led me to believe that most of the tools already exist, and that what's really needed are skill and patience. Skill to write well and to construct systems that account for dynamically changing conditions, and the patience required to do so.

Last time out, I discussed the conversation system used in Emily Short's Galatea, a game that focuses on a single conversation with an NPC using a modified ASK/TELL topic-based conversation system which handles mood, flow, and context in a fairly sophisticated fashion. While the resulting conversation has a nice structure to it, there are still some limitations to the system, notably the inability of the player to choose the specific aspect of the topic to discuss, and the distinct one-sidedness of conversations that resembles an interview more than an exchange. Given the quality of the game and the writing, though, I think most people are able to look past these limitations and appreciate the achievement.

Addressing these limitations, though, is a complicated matter. How do you allow players to ask more specific questions of NPCs, and how do you allow players to answer questions from NPCs, given the broad range of player input that this invites? The primary answer with many non-interactive fiction games (as well as some IF games) is to control input through multiple choice selections. It's a method that spans nearly all genres, from old LucasArts adventures to BioWare RPGs to first-person shooters like Deus Ex and beyond, and for the most part players of these games seem to be satisfied with this approach. But often the implementation (at least to me) just doesn't satisfy as a conversation, coming across as perhaps too simple and algorithmic with little dynamics or appreciation for changing context.

An interesting example of a piece that combines elements of different systems is Short's Pytho's Mask, a game that is more extensive than her previous Galatea but which still focuses on conversations between the player and the various NPCs. It was a finalist in many categories in the 2001 XYZZY Awards and won for Best NPCs, which I think is an exellent reflection of the synergy between the writing and the unique conversation system.

I think it also bears mentioning that this game's "Order of the Phoenix" pre-dates the Harry Potter incarnation by three years. There. That's out of the way.

In Pytho's Mask, the conversation system is topic-based, although it is not triggered by the usual ASK/TELL commands; instead, the TOPIC command is used to initiate discussion about a particular topic of interest. However, instead of the player-character then asking a single pre-determined question about that topic, the player is instead presented with multiple-choice options of questions or comments related to that topic. So for instance, if the player types >TOPIC PRINCE, a menu might appear with three options: "How long have you known the prince?", "You are close to the Prince?", and "Any idea where the Prince is?"

The system is also designed to handle answers to questions presented to the player by NPCs, which provides more of an opportunity for back-and-forth conversation. The end result is effective, although I would have liked to see a bit more of this than was implemented in the end -- unless I missed a number of exchanges. Still, the presence of both questions and answers made the conversations feel much more natural.

Of course, there are some minor aspects of the implementation that perhaps did not work quite that well. Some conversations proceed with the multiple-choice system even though only one choice is available; while this has the effect of allowing the player the option of not asking the available question if so preferred, the player must give the one available response when it occurs during one of the back-and-forth exchanges. The result is that it provides what amounts to a brief pause in the conversation, and it ends up feeling very similar to the classic TALK TO system. Which is not to imply that it is bad -- it just left me on occasion with the sense that the conversation didn't fully take advantage of the system used.

There are also situations where topics are brought up and multiple question options are listed, but they are often not exclusive (i.e., asking one does not eliminate the possibility of asking the others). So you end up with a list of questions that you know you're going to flip through one-by-one just to make sure you don't miss any important information, and that ends up feeling a bit like a chore.

On the surface, this type of conversation system is a nice idea, and it's actually very close to a system I had thought about implementing a while back. But as with Galatea, Short's implementation really shines because of her attention to detail under the surface, which helps it achieve more of its real potential for generating smooth, natural conversations that account for dynamic complexity and context.

As Short describes in her article on conversation systems, Pytho's Mask fiddles with the underlying conversation mechanics just enough to produce choices and output that fit together and flow smoothly. For instance, player input options are marked when used so they don't get repeated later on, unless it is desirable to allow it -- and in those cases, often the option is different the first time it is displayed than on subsequent displays. Player inputs can also have the effect of changing the topic of the conversation, such that the conversation options for the new topic are displayed after the previous one is processed, producing a sort of branching structure. Player inputs can also affect the emotion of the NPC, which can modify the conversation options that follow. Finally, the same topic can bring up different input choices depending on the context, such as the point in the narrative, the topics that have been addressed previously, and the actions that the player has previously performed.

Pytho's Mask, of course, is a conversation-based game that relies on smooth, dynamic, contextually appropriate conversations to be successful and satisfying, so it stands to reason that for a game like this one, the effort put into the conversation mechanics is worthwhile. But even if a game doesn't necessarily focus heavily on conversation, I have to think that the implementation of a more sophisticated system like this can only enhance the playing experience. It takes a lot of effort, sure -- but as I've said before, if developers put the same effort into conversation mechanics that they put into graphics and physics technology, we might just have some mainstream games that are a lot more interesting to play. The tools are there, all it takes is creativity and a bit of skill and patience.

A Short Review of Vespers

Emily Short has finally had the chance to play the original IF version of Vespers, and has a nice review of it up on her blog.

Short, of course, has tremendous experience playing, writing, and writing about a wide range of IF pieces, and her reviews are insightful and well-informed. I was a bit surprised to learn a while back that she had never played Vespers, and I wondered if she would get around to it one day. Gladly, that day has come. Her review is a good read, focusing largely on the game's effective use of plot construction:

"To my surprise, what I found most interesting about Vespers was its construction, its success at arranging events and making characters take action; it has a lot of plot, but avoids the excessively linear feel of many high-plot-content games. The way it works is mostly neat sleight-of-hand."

In the comments, I prompted her to say a few words about the game's conversation system and its multiple endings, which brought up some interesting points about the role of coercion in the game, its relationship to sin, and its impact on both the player and the protagonist (the Abbot). As well as I know the game at this point, I have to say I learned a bit more about it today.

A Conversation with a Work of Art

Simulating true conversations in a computer game is tough stuff. We're still some way away from effectively applying computational linguistics to game playing in a way that allows a wide range of natural language input, and I'm not even sure that's an entirely desirable goal given the enormous complexity that this would introduce into game design. So for now the general approach is to restrict the range and format of player input using a system that is easily interpreted and applied, such as a "click to talk" or multiple choice dialogue tree system.

The question, however, is this: when you play a game that implements conversation, do you feel that playing through the conversation contributes in any way to gameplay? Or does the conversation feel like more of an afterthought that requires little attention or skill on the part of the player (or the developer, for that matter)?

The answer, I think, largely has to do with the goal of conversation in the game. It can be a method of providing character or game backstory, or maybe a break in the action to advance the storyline. It is also used to present the player with a choice, such as a side quest or a broad game pathway. But more often than not, the conversation is brief and shallow, without requiring a great deal of thought from the player, and without considerable effort put into things like conversation flow, structure, or context. For the most part, given the limited role of conversation in the game, these things are unnecessary and not worth the added developmental effort.

Conversation doesn't have to be limited to these kinds of functions, however. In many interactive fiction games, conversation takes on a much larger role: it directs the narrative; it offers challenges to the player; it contributes to deeper character development -- within player and non-player characters and between them. Conversation might not be nearly as much fun as actions requiring fast-twitch hand-eye coordination which are rewarded with explosions and rag-doll physics, but I have to believe that there are some methods and mechanics in IF games that could translate to non-IF games to enhance the experience, so why not conversation?

I think any discussion of conversation in games, using IF as a foundation, would have to start with Emily Short's Galatea. Of all the IF games of the past decade or so, Galatea is, I would guess, the one most played by people who would not identify themselves as IF players, perhaps because of its visibility and renown. But interestingly, it is also one of the only games I know that consists entirely of a conversation, one that takes place between the player and the one non-player character in a single room.

It's a deceptively simple construct for a game which does an excellent job of hiding the sophisticated mechanics underneath.

Galatea primarily uses the traditional ASK/TELL system for conversation with the NPC, although the majority of the time is spent ASKing rather than TELLing. Because ASK HER ABOUT and TELL HER ABOUT can be shortened to A and T, respectively, most of the player's efforts are essentially thinking up and entering topic words to discuss. Other occasional interactions are allowed, such as HELLO and GOODBYE, which are interesting inclusions; while they do help newer players get started into the game, they also represent direct statements to the NPC (as opposed to commands for the player-character), which might throw off some players into expecting other direct statements to work. Nevertheless, the basics of the ASK/TELL system are familiar to most current IF players and are not difficult, I expect, for newer players to pick up, which is one reason why I think this game succeeds in attracting a broad audience.

Still, if the game consisted only of the basic ASK/TELL system, even with its impressive range of topics to discuss, it would likely fail to keep players interested for long.

Where Galatea succeeds is in Short's dogged attention to the underlying mechanics of the conversation. The NPC in this case is not your typical information vending machine which spits out its one preprogrammed response to each topic. Here Short has taken into account things like mood, flow, and context, such that the same question about one particular topic has a different effect and response depending on the current established relationship with the NPC, what questions were just asked immediately prior, and what topics had already been discussed to that point. It's a mechanic that sounds entirely logical to a normal conversation but one that is rarely attempted in games, probably due to the complexity of design.

But does creating complexity of conversation such as this really come across as far more daunting a task than the prospect of creating hyper-realistic graphics and physics systems?

As a very simple example, in the game you note that the NPC--a statue that has become animated--moves as though she is breathing. If you ask her about her breathing, she will tell you that she taught herself to breathe, and although not necessary she does so because it is soothing. Later on, if you then ask her about sleeping, the question (not the answer, but the question from your player character) is then worded: "And do you have to sleep? Or did you teach yourself, the way you taught yourself to breathe?" But if you hadn't previously asked about breathing, the question is worded only: "So do you sleep?"

The effect on the narrative, in this case, is quite minor. But there is an elegance to it, a quality that makes the conversational narrative flow more smoothly and naturally and that shows that the game isn't merely spitting out canned text but rather is constructing context-sensitive and appropriate responses that give the impression that the game is reacting dynamically to what the player is doing and has done.

The mechanics, of course, extend far beyond decorative adaptations.

In her essay on conversation systems in IF, Short describes Galatea's system as "topic quips with mood tracking and quip-tagging," where quips are the actual snippets of dialogue used in the game. So here we have single topic quips like with most ASK/TELL systems (one predetermined player character snippet for each ASK or TELL command, instead of multiple-choice options), but she includes quip-tagging, so that once quips are used they are not repeated. In addition, some quips can be used only after other quips; in fact, the same command (e.g., ASK HER ABOUT THE ARTIST) can produce different player quips and NPC responses depending on what other topics had been discussed previously.

Mood tracking is also fascinating, in that the mood of the NPC is tracked and changes in response to certain questions and answers, which can then impact responses to subsequent questions later on. The NPC's mood is also reflected in different ways, including gestures, expressions, and tones of voice, and the system was apparently designed to accomodate these dynamically into the text of the response.

There are, of course, some limitations of this type of conversation system. As mentioned in a previous blog, the ASK/TELL topic quip system can be frustrating at times, because the player is only allowed to specify the topic of discussion rather than the specific aspect of the topic to discuss; ASK HER ABOUT THE ARTIST is an extremely broad command that could result in asking her what the artist's name is, what he looks like, or what her relationship with him is like. Generally, Galatea does a nice job keeping the questions within the current context, but there remains a degree of helplessness on the part of the player.

Another limitation is that conversations with this type of system are notoriously one-sided; the NPC in Galatea is almost entirely reactive, rather than active. This makes the resulting conversation seem only like an interview, with the player asking one question after another, but therein lies one of the difficulties of designing a conversation with a system that uses topic quips rather than multiple-choice dialogue trees: how can we easily allow the player to answer questions, in addition to asking them?

Nevertheless, this game is a notable achievement that allows players to have a conversation with an NPC that reads like, and has the feel of, a very dynamic, responsive interaction with a character that is far more three-dimensional than any character from a mainstream game. The amount of effort that Short must have put into this is frightening, although since the source code was never released, most of this is based on interpretations and assumptions in addition to her writings. Still, with all of the effort and money already put into various complicated aspects of mainstream, AAA-quality games these days, I have to wonder: what might a team of Shorts create with a AAA engine, a fistful of investment capital, and a couple years worth of effort, just by utilizing some of the basic mechanics that already exist in games like Galatea?

Conversations with NPCs

As Corvus Elrod likes to say, compelling stories arise primarily from the relationships between characters. Although these relationships can be generated or expressed in different ways, I think it's fair to say that conversation is probably the most obvious and frequently used method in games. Yet it's interesting to note that conversation systems in games are fairly rudimentary and, in many cases, pretty unsatisfying.

There are many reasons for that, of course; human conversation can be horrifically complicated to deconstruct, and dynamically generating realistic and meaningful conversation with computer-controlled characters is still years away, especially when you factor audio into the equation. As a result, most conversation systems in games are simplistic representations that often follow tight scripts and leave little room for exploration, which is probably fine with most developers; it's difficult and time-consuming to create sophisticated interactive conversation, particularly without forcing players to use text-based input, and most text entry in mainstream games was abandoned some time ago. In the end, conversation is typically an insignificant component of gameplay, demanding barely more thought from players than a cutscene might.

I don't have nearly the range of experience with games that many other people have, but I would venture to say that the conversation systems in most graphical, mainstream games fall under one of two general classes:

1. Click to speak. The simplest system, where you just click on an NPC or hit a single key to trigger conversation. The player typically has no control over the topic of conversation or what the player character says, generally or specifically.

2. Multiple choice dialog trees. Players select from a limited list of speech options, which helps direct the conversation to some extent.

I'm sure there are mainstream games with variations on these that I've missed or forgotten, but they are less common. Nevertheless, I have yet to see a conversation system in a graphical, mainstream game that is particularly satisfying. Most games that use #1 generally are just using conversation as a means of advancing a storyline, without really incorporating conversation into gameplay in any significant way. Systems related to #2 do at least involve some thoughtful input on the part of the player, and because the choices presented are often specific player quotations, the resulting conversation can seem much more natural while also providing some degree of characterization for the player character. On the other hand, this type of system also encourages a "lawnmower" approach of trying all options, even if it requires re-initiating the conversation or using the save/restore approaches. There is thus little consequence to making those choices, especially if the different conversation branches just lead to the same end point anyway, as is often the case.

It's probably clear to readers here that I think interactive fiction has a leg up on other game genres in many areas, and conversation is one of those areas. But why is that? Is it because the medium has more conversation tools at its disposal? Is it because text-based input (and output) allows a greater range of conversation possibilities?

I don't necessarily think so.

A while back Emily Short created what is essentially the seminal piece on conversation systems in IF, and there's little reason to rehash what she so comprehensively covered. For those not as familiar with IF or her essay, I'll just summarize the most common IF conversation systems, which mirror those mentioned above in graphical games. The three most common are:

1. TALK. Players just type TALK TO to initiate conversation with the character, which generally results in a single back-and-forth exchange with the NPC (though sometimes more, and sometimes less). Not unlike system #1 above for graphical games, where the player just clicks on an NPC to trigger conversation without any say in what is discussed.

2. Topic-based conversation. The most common form is the ASK/TELL system, where players type ASK ABOUT , or TELL ABOUT . Here, players can direct the conversation by specifying which topic to discuss. In many iterations, players are not prompted with specific topics to choose from, which forces them to think about which topics might be fertile to discuss. Alternatively, some games use a variation on this approach, where conversation topics are highlighted in the text, and players need only type the topic itself to trigger conversation on that topic. That said, often the topics used are too broad; players may intend to ask about a specific aspect of a topic, but are compelled to rely on whatever was programmed by the author. Another issue is that NPCs often end up feeling more like information booths than living individuals, dispensing conversation like a vending machine without much of a two-way dialogue.

3. Multiple choice dialog trees. Same as mentioned earlier. Unlike with the ASK/TELL and TALK systems, players have a pretty good idea what specifically they will be saying or asking with the NPC, rather than generally. Particularly in a text game, this can provide a better degree of characterization. On the other hand, all potential choices are patent, leaving little challenge for the player, particularly if the conversation branches all lead eventually to the same end point. Also, as mentioned above, the UNDO or SAVE/RESTORE commands encourage the lawnmower approach, which can lessen player involvement and remove much of any challenge that is present.

These basic systems are not all that fundamentally different than those used in most mainstream graphical games, and within the IF realm they have their advantages and disadvantages. To me, though, there are three main reasons why I think conversation in IF generally works better than in other game genres: skill, creativity, and patience.

As I've suggested before, I think that perhaps it is a consequence of these games being created largely by writers rather than teams of programmers, designers, and artists, and I'm guessing it also has to do with the fact that most IF games are not commercial and lack the associated deadlines and budget constraints. It takes a lot of skill and time to write good conversation that creates depth for characters and their relationships, and even more to write it within a system where it is often pieced together at different points in time based on player actions. That takes a lot of planning, design, and testing. In some cases it demands some creative modification of the conversation system being used, but for the most part good, meaningful, and challenging conversation in games can be created with the tools and systems that are already out there. The more I play different IF games that have well-crafted conversation, the more I have come to realize this, and the more I believe that mainstream, graphical games can learn a lot from these implementations -- if only the developers would have any interest in it, which is to say, if only they thought that players would have any interest in it.

I also think the nature of the medium and the IF community is to encourage experimentation with different types of systems, and the result is that there have been some pretty creative solutions to what is (still) a complicated and mystifying issue. Sometimes that involves systems that combine different elements; Vespers, for instance, combines the TALK system with the ASK/TELL system, while a game like Short's Pytho's Mask combines topic-based conversation with multiple choice dialog trees. But often there is more that is designed under the hood, so to speak, in order to generate conversations that flow smoothly and are consistent with the events of the game regardless of the player's prior actions.

Over time, I'll try to review some of the games that I think do well at implementing conversation, with a focus on the mechanics, but also with a focus on the question of whether conversation systems like these could have a role in the more mainstream, graphical games industry. In the meantime, I'd be interested to hear if there are any mainstream games that people have encountered in the past that they felt utilized an effective conversation system.

Super Cthulhu Crunch Time

I've been away from the blog for a little bit now, as I've been in super crunch mode at work lately. I've been away at meetings all week, and I have a huge grant due tomorrow evening...which means I'm looking at an all nighter on this last night before submission. It got me thinking about what to best name this crunch time, when I came across this little gem on the net called "Cereal Killers", a blog with spoof cereal box artwork. Some great stuff there, including "Hellfire Blazin' Bran", "Sugar Frosted Skulls", "Shredded Feet (with Frosted Toes)", "Rice Kreepies", and of course, the aforementioned "Cthulhu Crunch".

(Honorable mention to "Tinkles" [Who peed in your cereal this morning? Tinkles did!]).

Given that this mad crunch time has been (and will continue to be) an exercise in extreme horror and evil, I believe Super Cthulhu Crunch can be appropriately named the Official Cereal(®) of my grant application week.

I'll be back next week with more appropriate content. Not too long ago I thought I would start a review of different conversation systems employed by various IF pieces (mostly by Emily Short, with a few others like those used by Aaron Reed) to see which ones I thought worked best at accomplishing different things. I started off with Short's "Pytho's Mask", which is a fascinating piece that has a lot to offer in terms of conversation implementation. I think a lot of other game genres can learn from the techniques used in IF games, which is actually one of the reasons I started the Vespers project.

In other news, I go ten days without blogging and my subscriber number (according to Feedburner) has at last, somehow, broken through that magical glass ceiling of 100. Maybe if I put off the next few blogs for a little while longer I can get my subscribership even higher. Thanks everyone!

I Wanna Hold Your Hand

I Wanna Hold Your Hand: This month’s Blogs of the Round Table invites you to explore a relationship within a game that you found compelling or memorable.

As Corvus has admirably asserted numerous times, "it’s not the characters themselves that make for compelling stories, but character relationships." I still contend that compelling stories owe at least part of their success to interesting and deep characters themselves, although admittedly I lack the skills to make a coherent argument to this effect. Nevertheless, I do agree that character relationships are the core of any good story, and it's a great topic to focus on for the Round Table since so few games have really embraced this concept.

Relationships certainly do exist in games, but they exist in much the same way that characters themselves typically exist in games: as relatively thin implementations that lack any significant depth or complexity. Part of that, I suspect, is because relationships between players and NPCs are very difficult to craft, for a couple of reasons: first, relationships that involve the player have to take into account the fact that the character is really a hybrid of the protagonist in the story and the player himself, which presents all kinds of difficulties in establishing a particular persona while simultaneously allowing the player's own feelings and decisions to be expressed; and second, creating and implementing meaningful relationships that have real impact on the story and the player requires considerable skill, effort, and time, which often doesn't rank up there on the developer's priority list alongside slick graphics and sound effects. Relationships that go beyond a bit of backstory and a few multiple-choice dialog screens is tough work.

Not to sound like a broken record, but I think the game genre that has one up on the others in this area is interactive fiction. In fact, I think what I said for the last Round Table similarly applies: "Perhaps it is the nature of the medium, perhaps it is a consequence of these games being created largely by writers rather than teams of programmers, designers, and artists. I'm not sure, but I know I have yet to play a graphical game that deals with the nuance of character relationships the same way that some IF games have so far been able to." The italics, of course, added now for relevance.

I recall once again some of the best known recent works of IF, pieces like Galatea, The Baron, and Anchorhead, which just serves to reinforce the fact that these games are so well known and worked so well largely because of the attention the authors paid to crafting the characters and their relationships.

Galatea is essentially a piece about relationships: the player's relationship with Galatea, and her relationship with her creator. It's a good example of a relationship that is expressed through gameplay, as the course of the game is really an exploration of the relationship between player and NPC through conversation. That's essentially one of the real challenges of playing Galatea; trying to establish a particular relationship with the NPC, so that you can learn more about her and her relationship with her creator. It's a clever piece that I would say is one of the strongest examples of a game that puts relationships at the center of its design, and provides a multitude of channels through which you can explore them.

The Baron and Anchorhead are two IF games that use particular relationships between the player character and NPCs as the basis for exceptional, well-crafted stories -- the rescue of a kidnapped daughter in The Baron, and the saving of one's husband from a bizarre family "tradition" in Anchorhead. In both cases, the relationship itself is not explored to considerable depth through interaction, but the game itself serves as a mechanism through which one gains an appreciation of the relationship with the family member. In fact, one might argue -- particularly in Anchorhead -- that the sparse interaction with the protagonist's husband is actually an effective means of providing engagement with that relationship, and serves to create tension during gameplay.

There are also a number of IF games that use the exploration of the relationship between the player and the player character as a central focus of gameplay. Three pieces that come to mind are Emily Short's Glass, Adam Cadre's 9:05, and one of Jason Devlin's "other" games, Legion. In these games, it is not clear at the start of the game who (or what) the protagonist in the game is, and a clear focus of gameplay is to figure that out. It is the kind of relationship that I think could only really be effective in a text environment, and these and other games of this kind make for a fun and different kind of experience.

There are many other works of IF that explore relationships in these ways, which is one of the reasons I find the genre so fascinating and fun. Most of the games mentioned, by the way, can be played online -- I suggest trying a new web-based IF platform called "Parchment", and clicking on the game you want from the list.

But -- as I'm sure you're waiting breathlessly for -- what about Vespers?

Vespers does include relationships as a central focus of the game: the protagonist's (the Abbot's) relationship with each of the remaining brothers is key to the game and the story, and it is the exploration of these relationships through interaction that provides much of the gameplay experience. Just before the start of the game, the Abbot chooses to close the monastery to the local villagers in order to try and keep the Plague away, a decision that was not supported by many of the brothers. When it becomes evident that the decision is a poor one, it puts a strain on the Abbot's relationships with some of the brothers, and this provides some of the tension in the game. There is also the relationship between Matteo and Lucca, which provides a great deal of background for the story, and the player's relationship with the young girl who appears at the monastery is, certainly, the central focus of the game. But you'll have to see that for yourself.

This post is a response to the June ‘08 topic from Blogs of the Round Table. You can see other entries on this subject in the drop down box below, which will update automatically with each new post.