If you rewatch the e3 footage what was said by the PC matches up really well with the option that was chosen, in my opinion anyways.

Though I will have backup saves ready if the odd LA Noir moment occurs. One of those happened in the Witcher 3 too. No one's perfect.

It has been stated in interviews with TH and Co. that they did go into the idea with the foreknowledge that there would be sacrifices. I think Brian has also discussed that they were careful in ensuring that the paraphrases were true to what was actually being said. If not Brian, it was definitely stated by either Hines or TH.

Brian did indeed say that each response was grounded in what was happening. He also said that devs we're always present and they took great care to ensure that kind of thing didn't happen. Of they don't get it perfect on their first stab at this I won't be surprised but I sure as hell appreciate the effort.

I've got my reservations, but I'm willing to wait and see how this plays out in-game.

I've been playing around with Fallout 3 and New Vegas lately, and I'm seeing a lot of nested dialog trees and conversations with four or less options even there. If that's an issue, then Fallout 4's system certainly isn't doing much to fix that problem but I don't think it's going to make things noticeably worse off than more conventional dialog systems. I'm also trying to keep in mind that in most RPGs a lot of those options are smoke and mirrors or personalized info dumps also. To my mind, that's something I'd like to start seeing some progression with - but that's kind of unrelated to voiced protagonists.

(ie, an industry-standard trick is to give you 3 options to respond with, but each branch essentially leads you to the same bottleneck. In other words you pick a "rude" response and the NPC counters with a note about you being rude and then goes right back to what they were going to tell you anyway. Or you get the option to "refuse" an important mission or plot-point, but the refusal branch really only takes a detour while the NPC explains to you why you're going to do this thing anyway and then afterwards proceeds along as if you'd immediately accepted the task anyway. And especially in a game like Fallout there's going to be a lot of exposition to cover and a lot of NPC dialog in every new town is basically going to be about you picking which bit of background info you want to hear first.)

I think there's some potential to the mitigate the "that's not what I thought I was going to say" problem with the brief summary options, but I'm not sure what the answer would be. People are always going to interpret things differently than intended. Maybe color-coding or something would go a ways toward ameliorating that problem. But I think the trade-off is that if you're going to have fully-voiced dialogs it might be less organic and flowing if you read the entire text and then your PC just repeated what you just read.

Keep in mind that the move towards giving the protagonist a voice came from an attempt to make RPG conversations flow more naturally and sound more like two people carrying on a conversation. You're going to need game mechanics that can back that up.

To my feelings no one's really moved RPG conversations forward in any terribly meaningful ways in decades. No one's really been reinventing the wheel on this one, so to speak. I think it's an interesting area - something tells me there's got to be a way to make conversation every bit as involved as combat or stealth or other types of gameplay you'd encounter in an RPG. But I'm digressing. Fallout 4 probably won't be coming out with anything mind-blowing, and as soon as I saw that video I knew there were going to be people here weren't a fan of that change. I get why people aren't going to be overjoyed with this new approach, but I'm kind of interested in seeing how Bethesda handles it.

This is that I call the Dragon age 2 effect, however it looks like it hit far harder here.

In short you change the game a lot to make it appeal to more players.

Problem is that they piss off the fanbase who then tend to say to everyone that the game is worse than ET and big rigs: https://youtu.be/h6DtVHqyYts?t=55Making most other players stay away.

This require that the fist game was popular and that the second game is mediocre or worse.

If the follow up game is good it can work, it worked for Fallout 3 who was radically different from Fallout 2.

X-rebirth sounds like the prefect storm here, then the developer is forced to do changes they don't want to they will not put their soul in it and at worst produce showelware.

Note that Fallout 4 is not dumbed down, it looks more feature rich than Fallout 3.

Its an danger that dialogues will have fewer options because of the new system but not sure. My critic is more that its clunky, more so on pc, its also an error trap.

No it doesn't, it's just that people are dumb.

I just hope they make some dialogue options common sense like when there's hostility during a conversation like if someone says something like:

"You wanna take this outside?"

One of the options should be "Take this outside" or "Take this outside "

Though I'm not really fond of the "" they implemented in FO3 and NV.

There was one funny dialogue in FO2 where you ask a scientist in San Fran what his work was about and he answers something like

"That's confidential."
One of the dialogue options was

"What if I stick a gun to your head and count until you tell me?"
He then replied

"I would call security."

You then had 2 choices:
"Let's try it." or "I was just kidding."

"Let's try it." activated battle mode, the first turn would be the scientist fleeing to call security. You didn't have an "" option.

I entered a computer shop once and rented a PC to print some stuff.
I was supposed to copy-paste some quote online into the document, highlighted the text but failed to press Ctrl-C.
When I pressed Ctrl-V first thing that pops is "I hope you and your entire family die in a fire"

Apparently the previous user had just been playing DotA and got into a fight with someone online.

This is pretty much exactly what I think about it.

I like to think the "dynamic dialogue" thing is actually used so characters react to what you are doing, but won't be surprised if it makes little difference.

Btw, do none of you find in real life, you often know kind of the gist of what to say, but once you start talking it comes out different?

sometimes I find myself stuttering over my words when I dont have a stutter problem and other times I completly forget words right on the spot.

Dragon Age.... 2?.... had an interesting little system where it showed a symbol in the center of the dialogue wheel, so you also got a general "tone" for the option you were selecting, in addition to it's summary. (Angry, sarcastic, etc)

Yeah, whereas I wasn't a huuuuge fan of DA1, and had seen the crushing reviews people made (so my expectations were low), and so..... I didn't find Dragon Age 2 all that bad, really. Sure, it had some flaws, but it also had some interesting ideas & story. (As I mentioned in that other thread, I've found that not being super-hyped / having high expectations of a game, helps me enjoy games more. They spend less time disappointing me that way.)

Better clip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sR3a0gixfwI

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect anonymity and lack of social cues makes it far easier to be a terrible person in cyberspace than meatspace, but it also goes the other way since people are also more willing to open up and share their emotions

anyway, on to the topic at hand. i detest the dialogue system, it seems like a bad version of bioware's wheel. the 4 button lay-out and the bad paraphrasing (if the conversation with the robot is any indication) is just a pain in the ass, having a conversation menu like FO3 or skyrim would be far better.

I seriously wonder if all those complaining about this actually PLAYED the previous games. NONE of them provided true unhindered conversational routes. ALL of them forced you down a prescipted path of dialog so I fail to see how "freedom of choice" has any bearing here. I guess I get how some players don't want to actually HEAR the conversation, but it's obvious that MANY more potential players don't want to READ walls of conversational text.

I also understand the concern with particular choices not being worded exactly to a players liking, but even if the text is fully printed out, you have no control over the wording either. Is it just that you can read it fully first before deciding, "ok, that's close to what I would say so I'll pick that one."? Now if the game has lots of horrific paraphrasing issues, that's a bad implementation of the design choice, not a bad design choice in itself.

I don't dislike the old system, but I will say that it often gets annoying in long dialog sequences.

Left as is and no option to turn it off.

Because my subjective taste is fact and must be forced upon everyone silly enough to not think like me (faulty beings).

...

More seriously. I, personally prefer a voiced player character. If it fits the character I'm creating, great... and if not I can abstract from it. I do find it annoying in other games, that I don't know what I'll say beforehand, if the dialogue text options are limited and prefer to view exactly what I'm gonna say. I have no problem, with an option to turn it off, so that other people can play the game more like they want to play it, unless offcourse they don't show me and my tastes the same courtesy. In that case they're on their own and I don't care whether they get what they want. I actually prefer they didn't... Because I'm just that fairminded...

I'm going to really miss the very low INT and CHR dialog choices.

Check this out: http://i.imgur.com/MbtIsDy.jpg

Are we going to have ANY dialog choices based on perks, skills, reputation, etc. or is it going to be the exact same choices in every play-through no matter who we are playing?

Shame, those never disabled half the quests as ... unsolvable at your intelligence or half the npc's because of general unpleasantness.

Where's the option for "I don't feel we know even about whole conversations and wish to refrain from voting until I do"?

My biggest concern is I'm gonna spend over an hour sculpting my face bit by bit, only to start the game hear them talk and realise the voice doesn't at all match the face.

I had this issue in mass effect and dragon age and it really limited the kind of character I could create, I also cant tell you how many times Iv selected a "No" option an had to reload the game because my character basically started talking smack and insulted an npcs mother in the process, so I would like a full sentence option, again "option" for all you arrogant D-bags saying "deal with it" just because it doesn't bother you.

While I'm still going to buy-play-love this game it would be nice to have an "option" to have a silent protagonist, for those of us who have a hard time roleplaying when your characters a bearded black guy with a Mohawk swinging a super sledge and sounds whiter than the load we all blew at hearing fallout 4 was being released.

Of course, you didn't have most of that in Fallout 3, either. Which is the previous game by Beth...... if people were expecting FO:NV2 from FO4, they were already setting themselves up to be disappointed. Even by the "taking inspiration from NV" concept, there was only so far Beth could change in it's style of game design. (like - the most I was expecting was hijacking some of the better game mechanics - improved crafting, companion control, etc. Not quest & dialogue writing. FO4 was always going to be a Beth game, not an Obsidian game. )

Because they're dumb. :^)

I have to agree, we aren't getting New Vegas 2.0. I'm hoping we get something improved but it's definitely not New Vegas.