I'm sorry but this is really the lowest degree of "dialogue" or even language...
well it may be really interactive, no doubt, but it is really really far from reality of our world (just we don't speak like that, pointing out(?/ showing?) objects...
As someone who has done a small but interesting bit of research into linguistics, I have to disagree with you. Perhaps I didn't explain it well. Symbols, after all, are at the root of all communications. By focusing on flexible symbols instead of 2 or 3 options in a typical dialog (which usually break down to "Yes, I'll help you, because I'm good!" and "No, I'll kill you because I hate puppies and life"!) you'd be able to communicate repeatedly making, and changing on-the-fly arrangements involving the intentions and emotions of both parties to any conversation. You'd know immediately the exact tone of any speaker to you, and be able to communicate a broad range of tones in turn. This wouldn't communicate background, but that wasn't its purpose, not when Crawford's games appeared in the mid-1980s. It was designed as I mentioned above to move dialog into a realtime, flexible, genuine exchange, with an AI that would learn from your dialog behavior as well as from your combat one.
