I'd say New Vegas made use of speech in a better form that Fallout 3. Though I would have liked to see a chance of failure in New Vegas. At least they gave barter some notable value in New Vegas as a sort of offshoot from speechcraft. It took over when items were involved, so you couldn't sell silence to someone if you weren't good at the trade.

I agree with this, but I also think there should be plenty of times where talking is not an option. Your axe wielding nord isn't going to stop to chat with you. Now if you catch him pre-wielding of the axe, just holding it and thinking about violence fine but while on a rampage I don't think so.





While I like the idea of a persuasion skill ending fights, ME did it like crap. And the ridiculous cat fight you have to break up when you are on a mission to save the effing galaxy was moronic in the extreme especially since it is solved via jerk/wuss points. This didn't add options it forced a style of game play. It would be like saying don't have the one handed skill at 90+ well you fail. Not you probably have to be level X to beat this fight but this very specific thing you have to have at the correct level or you fail in some way. That is forcing people to have speechcraft at certain levels to succeed, it is not giving speechcraft as a viable option for certain situations. The fact that to get to that level of skill you had to play your character as a flat pure jerk or pure nice guy made it even worse. One skill should not be required to succeed and you should need more than one skill to succeed.

Another thing people have mentioned is that the speech option is NV was a magic button that cheapened the interaction's with people. Thats why I think it should be taken out completely, and conversationchoices should tie in with your reputation. I also read somewhere here that your skills in strength, magic, and intelligence should also effect conversations, which is a good idea. I'd change dialogue from this:


NORD: Hey buddy, give me ur freaking gold!

PC: 1) Okay, here!
2) No way bro!
3) [STRENGTH] How about you give me YOUR gold?
4) [INT] OMG, what's that behind you?!
5) [SPEECH] Wow are you buff, do you want a hug?

To something like this:


NORD: Hey buddy, give me ur freaking gold!

PC: 1) Okay, here!
2) No way bro!
3) How about you give me YOUR gold?
4) OMG, what's that behind you?!
5) Wow are you buff, do you want a hug?

The latter example's choices would all depend on the traits and behavior of the character. With no magic button in your face telling you to press it player's would have to gauge the situation and choose what option best applies.

Yeah, thats definitely an idea I could get behind. I just wanted to make a quick example of what I meant. There should definitely be times when you have to fight, I would still like the option of trying for peace though.



Again, i'm not saying the mass effect system is perfect. Im just using it as an example of conflict without direct violence being implicated. The dialogue system is irrelevant. The matter of choice is not.

Absolutely not.

The extreme action focus is the actual reason for the decline of quality of RPGs.

Dragon Age Origins, although overall not a very good game, had one thing right, and that is character interaction. It only had way too little of it. Add much more of that and reduce the amount of combat drastically, and you'll get a much more interesting game. Even if there's a narrow range of options, it's a lot more than what you can do in combat. In combat, no matter what tactic you use, the outcome will always be the death of your enemy, which I find very boring. Combat should be the method of choice of few character types who are too stupid to use more diplomatic approaches (the barbarian type as a classical example), or in situations in which negotiations either failed or are not an option, such as when facing a dangerous animal in a cave.

When P&P roleplaying, I spend an average of 7 hours talking/faking evidence/researching etc. for each hour of action sequences. In cRPGs, I spend the same amount fighting as talking, if not more, which just feels like a waste of time and completely ruins the feeling of fear before a fight starts (especially beause of the easy save/load system in place in most games).

Technology would allow for a more complex communication system - not the PC understanding actual words, but if all the Devs focussing on shiny visuals, dual wielding and dragons would instead work on dialogue, we could easily have communications at twice the complexity level of those of good, recent games in this regard, for many hours (A lot of bug testing, possibly a larger closed beta, required of course).

At the end of the day, this is a role playing game. The focus should be on playing a role, which is mostly done through choices and communication. Skills, perks, weapons etc. are the tiniest thing about defining a role. I could play five completely different characters with exactly the same combat attributes and equipment.

I would subscribe to almost everything you stated, except for the implied acceptance of the statement ?Talking should be the primary problem solution method?.
The day dialogue becames dynamic and complex and not a simple matter of clicking a very limited set of options, i'll be more than happy to regard it as a complement to combat. And I endorse your remartk that more effort needs to go into programming this underdeveloped feature. I don't really care which model they use, as long as it shuns aways from the oversimplified metaphor that exists today.

Until then,
I just can't see how one can state that ?alking should be the primary problem solution method?

Well, as I said, I'd put resources into improving the dialogue system, making it more than a very limited set of options, and then have it the primary problem solution method.

The thing is, I'm a roleplayer. If I see something sold as a role playing game, I expect to play a role more than I expect to fight and 'level up' or whatever. However, most games that claim to be role playing games actually aren't really about playing a role. They're about fighting and levelling. This is quite a disappointment in my opinion, and nothing that'd have to be that way.

well they did say dialogue options are available with enemies so if taking lives makes you squeamish there probably will be a chance to avoid conflicts with humanoids just dont expect a grumpy dragon to listen to reason or be intimidated by you telling them how well your sword hacks off human limbs or how with the currents of magicka within you you can reduce a man to ash in seconds

Noone said or demanded that. I actually used hostile creatures (like dragons, at least the stupid ones) as example for situations in which speechcraft wouldn't help.

This isn't a matter of "Ohai evil enemy, let's talk this out". It's a matter of completely avoiding the situations in which arms are drawn anyway, or IF there's a conflict about to break out, more complex communication than "look at me, I'm so dangerous!". More like "Alright, alright, I see we have a problem here. But look - what you are seeking is to regain control of this castle, so I would be more useful to you alive than dead - you must know, I am a high ranking guardsman, and I know a thing or two about watch schedules... If we can arrange my... disappearance from this battlefield without bloodshed, I could hand you a list with names of guardsmen you might have a good chance at bribing... You must ask yourself now, why should you trust a traitor? The answer is simple: I do not care about this castle and will only try to live. If you let me go, I will show you the location of a smugglers cave near the lake, from where said guardsmen take some... extra income. Take their word on the work schedules of the guards if you don't want to believe mine."

This could be the truth, this could be a quickly made up lie, this could actually have been planned from the very beginning and the "smugglers" are actually guardsmen setting up an ambush - Many possibilities.

Edit: Alive than dead, not the other way around, of course.

Solutions using speechcraft, solutions using barter, solutions using stealth, solutions using combat, etc, etc. If a game provides a feature it should provide support for that feature, anything else is lip service and in a RPG should be vocally condemned as such. I'm not suggesting that all quests and encounters should be implemented such that all options are viable, that would be way to much work. A good mixture adds variation, some Q's with a single solution taken from the feature list and some Q's with a selection would appear to be the ideal.

If implemented correctly such a selection of Q's can also add depth to NPCs: at least some of the Morrowind faction lines had two or three times more Q's than were needed to advance through the faction, in some cases certain NPCs would reveal their true character by insisting that certain parties should die while other NPCs would restrict their requests to field work, for example. NPCs had a little more character, the player had more choice and more support for thir chosen rp. It can only be a win-win situation



First time I read this as beer booth. OMG what kind of bars do you drink in ?
tehe.

Peaceful resolutions should be limited to reverse-blade swords

I like the gray zone which can be simply implemented with a die roll. So in some cases when its really close you just have to pray it works out. On the converse side of this I would like speechcraft to help me infuriate people, either a call to arms to help me(companion) or to fight me. I would love to be able to tell an Altmer how much better Dunmer are. I want to tell a guy I just boxed down to stay down or I'll end it for him. I want ask whomever is wielding Umbra if I could just barrow it for a while then :bolt:
Speechcraft can be used enrage people, take Commence Sense and Uncle Tom's Cabin. On the other hand its a good thing we had diplomats with decent speechcraft 25-60 years ago because I remember growing up with people saying a nuclear war with Russia was inevitable and we should go ahead and nuke them. That would have been less effective and we wouldn't be playing Fallout but living it. If anyone wants an RPG without speech craft I would suggest Diablo, TItan's Quest and/or Dungeon Siege.

Well, the option to play a pacifist exists in New Vegas pretty fleshed out. I can't really think of any specific nonrandom situation that doesn't at least present one peaceful solution.

Things like Raiders and Animals aren't included in that assessment though. In a perfect world, we'd be able to pay off/intimidate/be robbed by raiders without a lethal fight, and animals would only react with extreme hostility when their territory is invaded. I can't think of anyone playing a game who would willingly submit themselves to having their stuff stolen. I'd like to see situations where certain enemies will attempt to flee (Which does happen) but you're able to yield to them, with the appropriately expected outcome (IE: Not them running 20 feet, then becoming hostile again at 1hp)

In situations where deadly force is needed, companions can step in the role if you really want to play a pure pacifist, such as a healer, but that requires exceptional companion AI, something Bethesda's game's haven't exactly been known for.

How bout a blackjack?