Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
I've been testing missions over the past week - excellent work for the most part. The hard work really shows on many of these great missions!

I wanted to bring up a topic for discussion. I noticed when testing missions that many creators use the response box to fill in a detailed reply from the player's captain, often simulating both sides a conversation with the contact or bridge officer. I have found this to be problematic.

If I am playing my Vulcan captain, and the provided response is informal (using contractions, slang, or laid-back conversational speech), I find it very jarring and out-of-character. On the contrary, if I am playing my more cavalier, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants captain, the responses that sound too formal are also annoying.

I think this is why Cryptic uses the word "Continue" in all or nearly all of the single-response replies, and the branching dialog choices are very brief and to the point. The reason for this is it is impossible to predict what type of captain a player has created, or how they speak. Making the responses generic may be a bit lacking in flavor, but the alternative, at least for me, breaks the immersion.

Thoughts? Comments?
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 2
12-17-2010, 07:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm11
I've been testing missions over the past week - excellent work for the most part. The hard work really shows on many of these great missions!

I wanted to bring up a topic for discussion. I noticed when testing missions that many creators use the response box to fill in a detailed reply from the player's captain, often simulating both sides a conversation with the contact or bridge officer. I have found this to be problematic.

If I am playing my Vulcan captain, and the provided response is informal (using contractions, slang, or laid-back conversational speech), I find it very jarring and out-of-character. On the contrary, if I am playing my more cavalier, fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants captain, the responses that sound too formal are also annoying.

I think this is why Cryptic uses the word "Continue" in all or nearly all of the single-response replies, and the branching dialog choices are very brief and to the point. The reason for this is it is impossible to predict what type of captain a player has created, or how they speak. Making the responses generic may be a bit lacking in flavor, but the alternative, at least for me, breaks the immersion.

Thoughts? Comments?
that is why I have left all conversation dialog continue buttons as continue.

Cryptic has it on their priority list that there will be branching dialog options
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 3
12-17-2010, 07:35 AM
Yes, that's why Cryptic leaves button-text and drafts mission briefings as generic as possible. Their engine currently does not seem to allow them to introduce deeper roleplaying concepts into gameplay, so they leave it to our imagination to carry the weight of roleplaying.

As far as I'm concerned, Cryptic should have a matrix of responses and possible dialogs, one criterion of which would be the race and gender of the person doing the talking. This way, an author could supply different dialog lines that convey the same meaning but sound and read differently based on what character the player is talking to, or talking as.

All in good time though... baby steps and all that.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 4
12-17-2010, 07:59 AM
i am one of those authors that use the continue button, as well as my bridge officers boxes to give them some personality and to make the story flow better.

i realise that some dialogue for some characters dont work but to be honest i dont think its something i will stop doing because its my mission and thats what i like to do, but i am conscious of not overdoing dialogue that wont fit everybody.

in fairness cryptic dont always get it right either. often my bo will say or describe stuff that does not fit the one i have chosen.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 5
12-17-2010, 08:07 AM
The same problem already exists for what the Bridge Officers say. A Vulcan would express himself differently from a Klingon, and so the dialogs often do not fit my BOs, either.

I hate the "Continue" stuff. The current way most of the dialogs in the game work, I have the feeling that I am just some stupid guy and my BOs give me thinly veiled orders. I don't feel like I am in charge.

The button replies I use are often neutral, but meaningful. They are not mere filler-text. Within the tiny text allowed to a Captain, I try to make him competent and the guy in charge, while trying to avoid overly emotional or character-specific responses.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 6
12-17-2010, 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo View Post
...in fairness cryptic dont always get it right either. often my bo will say or describe stuff that does not fit the one i have chosen.
Well, in fairness, some in-game situations left me feeling very unsatisfied, the P'Jem mission for example felt "wrong" from start to finish, even though the scenery was great and the combat was fun. It's just that I felt herded in the most worst of ways into fighting with no option to even pretend that I actually was a Starfleet Captain rather than a ruthless merc.

Not to be hypocritical, I will acknowledge right here and now, that my missions may make people feel like there's too much talking and not enough fighting.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MustrumRidcully View Post
I hate the "Continue" stuff. The current way most of the dialogs in the game work, I have the feeling that I am just some stupid guy and my BOs give me thinly veiled orders. I don't feel like I am in charge.
Another perfectly valid reason to try and make our Foundry missions different. We need to show Cryptic what we want and I figure the best way is to craft Foundry missions that would play and feel more personal to us as Players and Captains.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 7
12-17-2010, 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Revo
i am one of those authors that use the continue button, as well as my bridge officers boxes to give them some personality and to make the story flow better.

i realise that some dialogue for some characters dont work but to be honest i dont think its something i will stop doing because its my mission and thats what i like to do, but i am conscious of not overdoing dialogue that wont fit everybody.
Same here.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 8
12-17-2010, 09:56 AM
ok bridge officers have personality, however, theres only one way to talk to your captain in starfleet, your not going to go on his shoulder and say hey bob. The interaction between the bridge crew/captain in missions i write, i try to keep it formal, to the point, without injecting too much personality or speech pattern. But still a bit of flair. So it wont imprint on what you might have in mind for your officer, and it wont be boring either.

Secondly, some of us probably need to get over the fact the bo will never have a personality that kind of way and just enjoy the mission for what it is, a star trek episode in which you are interacting.

When star trek episodes aired on t.v did you nitpick and say, oh hey worf wouldn't say something like that, or he shouldn't say something like that? Just enjoy it for what it is. If people do not try to do new things with missions, missions will remain generic and boring. At least missions being created in the Foundry, because the devs will have advanced internal tools to do certain things and we see their creativity letting loose with recent featured episodes. They might also in turn get some ideas from us, and be better able to implement them on their side.

Foundry is limiting at best, don't matter if your story deserves a bloody oscar, it all boils down to shooting something.
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 9
12-17-2010, 01:02 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm11
I've been testing missions over the past week - excellent work for the most part. The hard work really shows on many of these great missions!

I wanted to bring up a topic for discussion. I noticed when testing missions that many creators use the response box to fill in a detailed reply from the player's captain, often simulating both sides a conversation with the contact or bridge officer. I have found this to be problematic.

Thoughts? Comments?
Yes. I also use the response button to simulate your character's dialogue. I saw that was how Cryptic uses it - especially in Night of the Comet as an example with the response buttons for Cassidy's drink e.g. "I am glad you enjoyed every last drop" etc.

So when I was building my mission the thought did cross my mind - should I make all the responses generic? What would other players think about the kind of responses I am putting on these buttons?

So I tried to keep them as generic as possible. I still can't stand using just "Continue" though. Mostly I stick with one word responses most of the time, e.g. "Understood" "Acknowledged" "Energize" "Proceed".

But some times I just couldn't resist putting something a little more forceful in there. Like "Let's go!" or "Let's move". One time though, just before a big battleship arrives I think I put "Bring it!" as the response. That obviously wouldn't work for a Vulcan lol
Lt. Commander
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 120
# 10
12-18-2010, 02:45 AM
It seems to me that players who use a Vulcan character don't deserve special treatment. I refuse to compromise using emotional responses just because some idiot wants a "Vulcan" Captain with no emotions. Who would do such a thing? The Emotional conflict between Vulcans and the rest of the Galaxy is beyond the considerations of Decent Story telling. I would rather have Players become emotionally invested in the story line... If some one chooses a Vulcan character to play then that is their problem not mine...

Sometimes a story just can't work with players that make things difficult and I'm not going to worry about 1% of a player base....

Good Stories evoke an emotional response from the consumer and that should be a prime consideration for dialogue. The Vulcan Factor is a "non-starter" for me. Screw all that... I'm not going to dumb-down anything just because some moron wants an "un-emotional robot-like" response...

The problems of Vulcan Commanders interacting with Humans is well documented and beyond the normal development of human-based stories... Now if We had some means of altering a story due to different species of players I would consider it an option... As it stands now my stories are for Normal Humans with emotions... If that doesn't suit someone's weird character then that's just tough.... I'm not going to lose Any sleep over it...
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:48 PM.