Larian Studios Forums Divinity: Original Sin 2 Divinity - Original Sin 2 - General I dont like that dialogue options start with "say"

During the Kickstarter.

I think, they just meant that they wanted to get deeper in the story than before. They will still change it, because they love their games and say what you want about the dual-dialogue of OS 1, but the Source Hunter had a good chemistry together.

Why should they change that now? Especially since we can see, that our companions have very distinct personalities. The same companions we can choose to play. It would kill the mood, if they are the only ones with concrete lines, wouldn't it?

So, just wait, we will get our dialogues.

The * are there to indicate content not finished or implimented so anything with a * next to it means its subject to change that is why some of the stats have *next to them and spell names too

Planescape Torment:
(best case scenario):

(complimenting Anna)
Truth:"I mean, have you ever *looked* at yourself? Aside from the way you carry yourself, you're confident, sensible and graceful. And that doesn't even take into account your obvious good looks: you have that rich, fire-red hair, those sharp green eyes, and that striking profile."

(dissing Anna)
Truth: "I mean, look at yourself. You're at least twice the greedy corpse pirate that Pharod could ever be, and you have that strange Hive smell about you that makes my eyes tear up, and you have that filthy, rat-like tail sprouting from your backside"



D:OS2
(where you ostensibly control a robot by remote control rather than playing a character):

(complimenting the red prince)
"Greet him with nice words"

(dissing someone)
"Insult him"


Torment: Tides of Numenera:
No complimenting and no dissing. No any kind of character, whether humorous, malicious, aloof or otherwise. Pretty much.
Just straight requests for information ("What is X again?") or informational statements ("I'm going to kill you".), which of course can imply intention, but the same way a .. psycopath implies intention, I suppose.




Just goes to show, you have all manner of ways to spectacularly fail in capturing what makes dialogue engaging.
TTON manages it one way, D:OS2 manages to do it another way.

Both are EA and can change.

And no, milkman, [] is temp dialogue/description/name.

Since we are discussing *placeholders*, the only thing that matters - shockingly - is which style is less time-consuming. I think it's very easy for ANY designer to write generic sentences, without resorting to third person. Do you really think that putting everything in indirect form is faster than writing something generic, which can be changed or enriched with personality later in development? I don't think so, and no one ever did that before, even in early access, alpha or beta. That's why I think it's a specific choice.

Also, I kinda remind Larian stating that they would try a new approach to dialogue in D:OS2. I fear THIS is what they were talking about.
I was really curious to try it out, but now that I did... urgh, I strongly hope they will remove this third person style.

It would be nice to hear official words about this matter: is it an intentional experiment or just a placeholder?

Ehm, yeah... it's [Ask for more], [ask directions] and other stuff we say in D:OS1. Also you may note talking to teammates, the "party dialogue" is in... exactly, [] not **

It IS not placeholder dialogue. It's a good idea that however in execution feels thoroughly lacking.

i watched somone play it before it came on early access and the dev in the room with him told him that all * indicated that it wasn't final

See one of the first things I did yesterday when I started playing was screen shot the dialogue to show people how much I like it. Personally, I feel more immersed by it for two reasons..

1: In most games, you chose a dialogue options that reads "Q W E R" but once selected the character actually says "A S D R" - That alone breaks immersion for me. Especially when it's not even close to the dialogue you selected. So in essence this avoids that by vagueness. Either say EXACTLY what's written or leave it open to interpretation..\

2: As someone who writes graphic novels (As a hobby.. in my living room.. no one will ever read haha) but as a writer and artist, I find when I look at options like *Look at him curiously and ask if perhaps he's better off alone?* in my mind I create the dialogue around what and how I think the character would say and act. In my mind she raises a brow and says "Eh.. perhaps it's best I leave you alone, aye?" or some such.. I can create an accent... a way of wording things etc. It's triggering my brain to fill in words for the character.. so now I AM the character..

To me that is 100% immersion, however not everyone shares a creative mind (which is absolutely fine) a lot of people playing this game may require that direct approach to dialogue and action. The same happens with games like EVE online or Paradox Titles.. or hell Minecraft.. games where there is no set objective per say, however the open ended sandbox allows for one to have as much fun with it as their creative minds allow them. To some, this is an empty boring concept.. to others.. LOVE IT! Can't give just anyone a big box of Lego with no instructions and have them build something amazing... However for those who can, it's significantly more fun without instructions :)

So personally, I hope they keep it the way it is to some extent. Though I trust it will change to a more traditional dialogue.. I'll enjoy this for as long as I can in the meantime and still enjoy the changes when they come :)

The notion that you have to have a creative mind to enjoy text is insulting. There're many great, great, great books and games out there that are more creative and immersive told as first person. As a writer you should consider than not everybody's tastes are the same and people read, gather and learn new information in more ways than just what you think is right.

For me, first person RP'ing is more creative than *tell x that he smells bad*, that is short, vague and uncreative to me.

I would prefer: *Your smell is deep enough to scare away a thousand ships*, which is more specific, creative and humorous than a commanding 3rd person line.

They could just leave the current stuff as option... I mean, it is ALL written, if need to be re-written nothing is lost if it's kept aswell rather than fully replaced. That way the player can pick his own favorite.

I find this dialogue system to be more immersive. It lets the player know the intention behind the dialogue options, while not accidentally breaking the players' vision of their characters. These options are generally well worded, and I like reading them while thinking how my character would have worded the chosen intention it.

I like it myself. It may be temp, but it's already kinda well written and it conveys a more accurate idea of what we are about to say. "Gently tell her not to be afraid and place a reassuring hand on her shoulder" is more defined than "don't worry, it's going to be alright", but there may be instances when you read a "spoken" sentence as cynical where it was actually meant to be first degree, hence not giving you the expected result in the conversation.

Sure, one may say that it's the people you're talking to that reacts first degree, but yet... I'd rather have in-your-face adjectives to avoid qui-pro-quo than be met, once again, with dialogue options that diverge from what I actually thought they meant.

Now I don't really care, I just thought it was an interesting approach to dialogue

Like the style of the dialog system in dos2, it's more true RPG. You playing the role as a spectator. Anyway the old system in dos1 was more closed, final sentences and now I can tell to the NPC's whatever I want. No more pre-written sentences. It's more open. More freedom for my minds. Hail to the Larians.

I actually like them a lot: it allows me to imagine what I'd say. It's not unlike Mass Effect or the new Dragon Age, where you click on text but the character says something different, which means the same thing.

I can't tell you how fun it is to remote control a robot without personality or character.
I can tell you it's not.

The attempt to let the player imagine the text just makes out for a really, really bland, retarded experience

I agree, this dialogue system is very impersonal and break the immersion in the game

I like the dialogue system as is. Dr Koin sums it up well.

I will add that I would like to hear a character quip when we select these options (like a combat bark but more for expressing general sentiment/emotion)
ie when selecting "Gently tell her not to be afraid and place a reassuring hand on her shoulder" we hear our lizard character make a consoling noise.
ie. when selecting "Insult him" you hear an angry grumble

That would not require much voice work and would aid in creating a mood for each line that required it.

Something I don't understand if some of the dialogue will have voice actors how will they actually convey this? I think the dialogue is just placeholders -- perhaps the roleplay elements will remain but it will have a voice too.

Good points have already been made. I just want to make it clear that I also agree with the OP. I don't like the current form of this dialogue.