29:35 *Standard three choice "response" pattern:* • *Accept* - go with the current conversation ("Well, _my_ name is...") • *Reject* - react against the current conversation ("I'm not here for you.") • *Deflect* - change to a different conversation ("Tell me something...")

Fascinating and informative. It's reassuring that SOMEBODY out there in game development is thinking about dialogue. The folks from Bethesda could benefit from watching this presentation.

Absolutely fantastic talk. This Ingold guy is a treasure and someone should throw a lot of money at him to help make the next generation of AAA RPG titles really sing.

Thank you for this, I agree with every bit of it. Especially important IMO: 18:30 "Because, if all of the meaningful interaction is happening in the subtext, then the text itself doesn't matter that much." 49:09 "Agency; we have to reflect a range of approaches, but it's the range that *we* give the player, not the range the player wants. That's crucial. They don't know the story -- *We* do." It's true, even though it may seem counter-intuitive for an RPG. One of my favorite RPGs is Deus Ex 1, and I would love to hear Jon's thoughts on the dialogue of this game. Typically (about 90% of it) the dialogue is as Jon described in this video. The subtext of a conversation usually stays the same no matter what you choose, but your choices add flavor and *might* alter how a character interacts with you later on... But the important part is the dialogue usually does not depart from its subtext, while the range of choices still succeeds at being diverse enough for most players. Another benefit to overloading the game with "meaningless" choices that the speaker did not cover, is that they help to conceal the more rare "real" choices, which do actually alter the story. And it's good that those real, story-altering moments are buried in conversations that only have meaningless choices -- because as a storyteller, you do not want the player to consciously (or even subconsciously) derive the outcome of every dialogue option with near perfect accuracy before those outcomes actually happen... Which is what happens in many modern games. If you can see right through it, it's not fun.

That was amazing. The general quality of video games dialogues is why I want to write video games, and this was a very useful demonstration. Thank you for that.

This guy is a top tier dialogue surgeon

Brilliant, thank you.

This was really fascinating & enjoyable to watch! Thanks for posting it.

Eye opening. Thanks so much for this!

It's so much fun when the speaker is witty and funny in addition to being knowledgeable!

Brilliant talk. Thanks a lot

Great thoughts here!

Hot damn, THIS is how you deliver a talk.

Thank you so much

Thank you.

Looking forward to Heaven's Vault.

so funny and useful... great speaker, :)

this is fantastic, thanks!

Fantastic talk! I've never heard anyone give such a clear mission statement to game writers: look at the subtext! The only reason we're used to a crappy standard of dialogue in games nowadays is that studios have refused for the longest time to invest in the kind of writers/dialogue designers/narrative designers (whatever you want to call it), who can wrap their heads around the subtext of a conversation, and who can make it work for them. What studios want is functional dialogue: dialogue that carries the plot, that points the player in the right direction, that acts as a road sign rather than an actual conversation. Real conversations have stakes. You can lose face. Every conversation is identity-confirming. But you cannot really ask the player to do this with a fictional character unless they have been immersed in the character themselves. Otherwise, the player will do one of two things: default to their own identity in lieu of that of the character, or choose the most random answer proposed to them. But dialogue is also a very strong tool for immersing a player, so there's a bit of a chicken and the egg thing going on here. I like the idea of thinking about dialogue options as "accept, reject, deflect" options. It's elegant. And it can work. And you can crank the modal gears in such a way that either one of those options is jokey, serious, blatant, nuanced, subtle or punchy, whichever you need for a character. But I would say, don't overlook the importance of body language. The response to a sentence shouldn't always have to be another sentence. Which is why the "no" option in the first two story beats could just as well have been a stoic silence.

Wish Bethesda had hired him to come in for 3 months at the beginning of development on Starfield. Just to train their writers how to use these types of systems. (Which could certainly be done in their engine… maybe not as easily as in inkle, but could be done, as it’s all just logic.) Then, after several months of putting the writers through a bootcamp on how to structure convo, they’d be able to write using those ideas, for the rest of the project. I really do wonder which AAA studio is going to pick up on Mr Ingold’s ideas. It’s insane that his GDC talks on open-narrative/quest structure have been available for years, and we still get… what we get, from AAA studios. "Hi i’ve been waiting here on my porch for you to talk to me, and because you’re the only person who does things, i need you to go kill a werewolf in the forest. Bring back the wolf’s head. Go on now, fetch!" 😂 There is a better way. I’m convinced his ideas will eventually become more commonly used, to allow better interactions and storytelling.

Westworld 🖐🎤

are there any talk like this for games without dialogue?

Does anyone know where the Ink function "came_from" comes from? It's not documented anywhere. It's not in the offical "Full documentation" of Ink and it's not in the unofficial Ink cookbook.

Is there a version of this software that is able to be used for our own interactive dialogue? It would be really helpful for one of our university projects

so i have a problem with how he gets into the writing of a game. I believe writers of video games need to go into writing 1 of 2 ways. 1. Am i writing a story for the player? 2. Am i making a story for the player to write? he’s talking about writing a story for a player that wants a pre-made story where what i say doesn’t effect the game. the real question is, Can i make subtext for the actions a player chooses that effects the story. Many games aren’t about going through the story, its about making your own.

People 'hate' the three choice system. Fallout 4 was a great example on this. Players can accept, reject, or deflect by asking questions, but in the end all responses lead to the same conclusion, just as shown in his presentation. As a player, I'd rather much prefer to make a choice when things really do matter. In Wings of Liberty at least players could make different 'meaningful' choices, even though it didn't impact the ending overall. The choice had consequences. Without consequences, it's not really a choice.

Game story writing is universally horrific. I don't even read or follow along anymore - I havent for decades. Gameplay is why I play computer games. The fiction is pulp at best. Seriously the only meaningful story moment in my 40 years of computer gaming was when I was kicking back after finishing Portal, and that song came on. That shouldn't count because music. What a moment that was though.

How to construct completely pointless and unsatisfactory choices in games. Dear lord do I hate the sorts of dialogue trees he's describing. Hopefully people who will actually have anything to do with the industry don't listen all to hard... Because this design leads to a horribly unsatisfying experience for any gamer who's remotely critical or diligent.