Josh Sawyer on NPC dialogue

[King of Creation]

<strong>[ Person -> Interview ]</strong> - More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/J. E. Sawyer">Person: J. E. Sawyer</a> | More info on <a href="http://fallout.wikia.com/wiki/Fallout: New Vegas">Game: Fallout: New Vegas</a>

<p><em><strong>Fallout: New Vegas</strong></em> lead <strong>Josh Sawyer</strong> has answered another question via <a href="http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/473906363">his Formspring page</a>. This one has to do with NPC dialogue. Check it out:</p>
<blockquote>
<p><em>Q: Do you have any particular approaches to NPC dialogue/chatter to help with immersivity and without them coming off as useless bots, taking up space, and never adding much lore or relevant information?

A: I am a believer in what Obsidian calls "barkstrings". Generic, rank-and-file characters in the world typically do not have full dialogue trees. Instead, they have a large list of reactive one-off lines that they will say either in passing or when you interact with them. As long as barkstrings react to things in a meaningful fashion, it's usually more satisfying than drilling generic characters for generic information through a dialogue tree.

Background characters should also be engaged in meaningful action. A world where people endlessly, randomly mill about feels like a world without purpose. Communities should have a focus and characters within communities should have roles that they fill.</em></p>
</blockquote>
<p>You can go ask Sawyer anything you want <a href="http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer">over here</a>.</p>

[Retlaw83]

The more he answers these questions, the more it seems like he's saying "Fallout 3 got it wrong."

[S4ur0n27]

Dialogue trees are bad, mmm'kay?

[gobbleykins]

Do you think developers should ignore the demands of some hardcore fans to keep obsolete or inferior features in the sequel just because it was in the original?

I think developers should try to make a good game. While this means they do have to understand the expectations established by previous titles, they have to be willing to re-evaluate mechanics if they've demonstrably failed or caused problems in the past. I think its most important that they keep the spirit of a franchise/series/world alive. If they can do that while improving a mechanic, they should go for it. If changing mechanics radically alters the feeling of the setting and series, the cost has to be weighed very carefully.

Butthurt fallout 3 fan talking about first person POV.

[Manoil]

Not really, no

[TwinkieGorilla]

what exactly is obsolete or inferior? turn-based? isometric? good writing? choices and consequences? S.P.E.C.I.A.L.? skills affecting anything meaningful? i didn't realize those things could be objectively determined. thank you next-gen gamer, for your fine intellectual excellence.

[Dreadnought]

:speech skill:

[S4ur0n27]

hitler must have maxed out his charisma attribute