Quote from Leather Raven (aka the game writer Rhianna Pratchett) in the BD general forum, in response to criticism of the lack of character dialogue in BD.
The future of interactive dialogue is an interesting one, and one that I think will be redefined not so much by its underlying structure but by general character development, depth and emotion. Thoughts anyone?
That would seem to be a pretty key question facing RPG games. Where do you see it going? "Interactive" used to mean that the player got a choice of what their character said and how they developed. Now, as far as speech goes, it seems to refer to whether there is any in-game dialogue at all, let alone the chance to influence it. I love good wordy story driven games, and I enjoy ones that give me the chance to respond rather than just listen. However, the majority of games now seem to dish the story up completely pre-cooked, and fairly "lite' with regard to dialogue and story.
For instance, for the minimalist approach, I've just replayed System Shock 2 which had a number of RPG elements but no dialogue or NPC interaction at all, apart from killing whatever you saw. The only tool that the writer was given to advance the plot and create the atmosphere was a series of audio logs from the crew (almost all of which you find well after they're dead) and an intermittent series of bossy monologues from a computer AI (or two computer AIs to be pedantic about it). It also took place entirely in a series of rooms and corridors. No external scenes at all. A very restrictive brief, and one that I�d generally run a mile from. But they did still manage to use it to good effect. You could develop your character through different skills �implants� and by choices of weapon styles and attack methods. It worked as both a shooter and to some extent as an rpg. The path of magic was replaced by �psionics�. The atmosphere was well maintained � and downright scary at times � and the plot remained a central part of the enjoyment. Some of it looks a bit dated now, particularly towards the end, but it was cleverly done, given such a very narrow range to work with.
But I certainly wouldn�t want all games to follow that format. I�d soon lose interest if all I had to play was one after another in the same style. I like to balance the rock and roll with a bit of symphony music, to sometimes swap the magazine for a good meaty book. Is there no room left for variety? Is it too much to hope that games won�t follow the movies and TV down the route of wall to wall mass market stuff? Are games with choices of dialogue and story paths going to disappear altogether? Have multi-layered story-rich quests been completely replaced by large numbers of skippable shallow one-goal tasks?
Most shooter style games currently use a similar format to SS2 � story information (where it exists at all) is delivered by in-game devices such as found written material, computer terminals, �briefings� delivered by an unseen ally or commander, overheard conversations, and so on, interspersed with scripted cut scenes. The rest is left to the visual side of things, with more and more emphasis on a cinematic style of delivery. Not that cinematic treatment of games is bad thing, in fact it�s becoming pretty much essential to incorporate some of the strengths of a good film into games. But if visual techniques replace word based story rather than complement it then I think that�s a huge loss.
RPGs are one of the oldest forms of game genres, tracing their roots all the way back to the first text only games of 20 years ago, and also to the whole history of telling stories that rely more on words than pictures. I�d hate to see them abandon that tradition and just merge with the faster paced, visually driven shooter style.
"Interactive" was once quite a catchcry in the games industry. After all, computer games have a unique advantage over books and films in that they have use a technology that can deliver genuine difference from player to player and give us the chance to play through more than once without it being exactly the same each time.
But many developers now seem to have abandoned their initial goals of depth and intelligence and treat the market as one big pool of dumb impatient kids who want �no thought/ no effort� entertainment based on bash, crash, flash and eye candy. That can be fun too for a while, and maybe that�s where the money is now, but I sure hope that it doesn�t end up choking out the rest of the market.
Right now my games dollars are being spent on books again. No bad thing really, I�ve always loved books, but I�d like to believe that there are still some well written and satisfying games somewhere in the future.
What do other gamers feel about the future, or past, of RPGs?
