DIALOGUE,

CHOICE,
AND THEIR
RELATIONSHIP
MECHANICS
Running Head:
DIALOGUE,
CHOICE,
AND THEIRWITH
RELATIONSHIP
1
WITH MECHANICS

Dialogue, Choice, and their Relationship with Mechanics in Video Games

Thomas Ball
DigiPen Institute of Technology

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

2
For this paper, I will be looking at interactive dialogue in video games and
breaking down the various methods employed by creators to gain an understanding
of what can be done to give the players different, and hopefully more positive,
experiences with these systems. The primary focus will be on games that feature at
least some measure of branching path dialogue. What this means is that players are
able, via a collection of options, to have some sort of effect on the outcome of a
dialogue. This may change the world, characters, morality, accessibility to items, or
any other wealth of potential effects in the game, even if only minutely, and even if
the choice ultimately doesnt have a lasting impact on the game as a whole. This is
opposed to a more streamlined linear dialogue system that is often seen in games
where the player simply observes as their characters speak distinct lines of dialogue
throughout the game. The key difference is an expected input from the player when
given more than one option of where to take the conversation.

Cinematic Flow
Cinematic Flow refers to the pacing of a dialogue. A dialogue is simply a
method for two or more characters to exchange information through language. With
relation to the milder interpretation of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, we know that
language influences thoughts and behavior, and as such these dialogues between
player and non-player characters can have an effect on how the player thinks and
acts. When characters speak in a way that is close to real-world parallels (including
words spoken, language used, facial animation, and body language), the
conversation moves smoothly and in a believable way, leading to cinematic flow.
Game creators often try to achieve this because they want their dialogues to feel
less like a video game and more like a movie, where the pacing is appropriate and

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

3
not jarring for those experiencing it. It is a response to some of the more traditional
dialogue systems of hearing an NPC say a line and then being able to choose a

response from a list of options. During this time, the player is removed from the
conversation, which wasnt a problem for older games where the delivery was
similar to that of a book, but as the technology has improved and humans are
easier to portray in games, we expect them to act in a more human way.
An example of a game with great cinematic flow is the Mass Effect series.
They utilize a number of methods to keep the conversation flowing as much as
possible. Primarily, the number of choices is refined into three fundamental paths,
which generally are: positive, neutral, and negative. This allows players to build a
heuristic for how they can be expected to respond, which helps them process their
thoughts about how they want to respond much quicker. The reason that this is so
effective in terms of cinematic flow is because this is coupled with the fact that the
options for responses appear before the NPC is finished speaking. This allows the
player to quickly choose how they want to respond and have their character do so
naturally and with appropriate pacing, eliminating any awkward pauses.

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

4
The reason that this method of delivery is beneficial is that it helps keep the
player immersed in the game world. When dialogues are played out like cutscenes,
creators are given the freedom to forge the experience that they want the player to
have. The advantage over traditional cutscenes, however, is that players are still
fully engaged with the game because they know that choices will be expected of
them. As such, they keep paying attention and keep themselves engaged with the
content being delivered to them. Having a shorter list of options means that players
who make these choices using selection by elimination can process all of the data
much quicker and make timelier responses.
While cinematic flow is a good way to keep players immersed in the
experience, there is still a great benefit to taking the more traditional approach.
With more options comes greater player agency, and the ability to craft the
character that they want to make instead of a character who is one of three shades.
For example, the games Fallout 3 and Fallout 4 offer each method of dialogue
previously discussed. Fallout 3 allows players to select responses from a large list of
options, some leading to different dialogue tangents before returning to the main
root (a method of delivery is also known as a hub and spoke system (Freed, 2014)).
Fallout 4 eliminates a lot of the extended choices in favor of a streamlined list of
four options similar to Mass Effect that almost always progress the dialogue forward
without giving the players a chance to revisit previous questions; also known as a
waterfall system (Freed, 2014). Fallout 3s system gives players the ability to play
as whoever they want to play as, be that a greedy mercenary, a lone wanderer, a
local hero, a raging psychopath, and more. Given that the player can freely choose
their equipment, face, gender, skills, and partners, it compliments these other
mechanics to let the player role-play and make the choices they want to make.

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

5
Conversely, Fallout 4 gives the player a character who acts in very specific ways.
This removes the overall agency of the character but it does so to improve the
cinematic flow and presentation of dialogues.
Giving a player agency is very important in game design, but it also comes at
a cost. While some players might respond favorably to the ability to play as they
choose, others might be overwhelmed by the choices offered to them, instead
choosing whatever seems to keep the conversation going. Too many choices can
lead to analysis paralysis which might in turn lead to satisfying, meaning that the
content that was intended for them to explore is now being ignored and contributing
to a negative experience of the game.

Roleplaying
The idea of agency leads to the impact of roleplaying in dialogue systems.
Dialogue can be used as a mechanic to acquire information, tangible items,
relationships, or simply to satisfy a yearning for more narrative stimuli. When giving
players options in video game dialogue, it is extremely important to make the
expected outcomes of these choices clear, something that games still struggle with
today. A hypothetical example might be an option that says Hand
over your money. A player might select it, expecting their character
to intimidate an NPC, but the actual result is that their character
hands over their money to the NPC. Misinterpretation and poor
utilization of pragmatics can easily lead to these kinds of mistakes,
which can be extremely impactful to a player in a very negative way,
especially if they have an expectation of how their character should
act.

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

6
Many games attempt to have clear and concise generalizations of what a
player character might say instead of spelling out every single word that they would
be saying (hence reducing the time and cognitive load it takes to
parse through the options). This helps players understand the
general connotative meaning behind their choice, but if it gets
misrepresented then it breaks players from their immersion. The
most successful remedy to this problem that I have seen is the use of
symbols in conjunction with words, as seen in Dragon Age II. The
game accompanies its dialogue options with symbols that generally
convey its meaning should it not already be clear. For example an
aggressive response is accompanied with a red fist. Even if the
accompanying text doesnt initially read as aggressive, the symbol helps guide the
player to its connotative meaning.
Another advantage that this system has is that it very clearly communicates
the outcome of certain choices. The crossed swords will always mean that this
response will trigger combat, the green tick means that you are agreeing, and the
red x means that you are disagreeing, and so on. By using these symbols, creators
can break down the barriers of miscommunication and establish the correct
pragmatics so that the player both understands what the dialogue choice entails
and how it will be delivered. If the game is particularly cinematic, this also needs to
extend to the main characters expression of the dialogue. While choosing an
aggressive response might have the player character say something aggressive and
have an NPC respond appropriately, it will lose all impact if the player character
says it with a kindly smile on his or her face. The actions of the characters need to

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

7
reflect the overall delivery and match up with the choices from a connotative
perspective to ensure that there isnt dissociative action.

Impactful Choice
Ideally, every choice that a player can make has an intentional effect on the
outcome of the game. Choices need to have purpose otherwise they will come
across as shallow and meaningless. One of the biggest critiques of a choice-driven
game can be that none of the choices mean anything, usually because no matter
what is chosen the end result is always the same. Game creators have come up
with numerous solutions to this problem, since the most obvious remedy making
more content quickly becomes very prohibitive. Illusion of choice, when pulled off
successfully, lets players feel like they are making an impact and shaping their own
experience when that might not necessarily be true. This works very well for a first
playthrough of a game, but it quickly becomes apparent on multiple playthroughs or
comparisons with other peoples playthroughs.
A solution to tackling this problem is difficult to suggest since it will always
require more resources from the creators. Alpha Protocol attempted to deal with this
by creating multiple opportunities for players to handle differently, and had various
characters in the game either be impressed or unimpressed with the way you went
about a situation. For example, if you went in guns blazing, a more tactically-minded
ally would disapprove, while a more pragmatic ally would commend you. The key to
this was that no matter your play style, there would be some characters who
approved and some who disapproved, meaning that there was no clear choice to
be made, leaving it in players hands.

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

8
Choice becomes especially difficult because of its nature. Having choices
generally implies that there will be some that are good while there are others that
will be bad. Often a choice-driven dialogue will push a player down a singular path,
taking little detours along the way to accommodate for the options they selected.
This lets them see an NPCs reactions to the different ways of how they might
approach the situation, but ultimately the branches combine back into a final
convergence point. The problem with this is that the player needs more feedback
for these actions than one-shot reactions from an NPC, otherwise the player could
go through the game hitting random responses and still experience the same
content. Telltales The Walking Dead attempted to remedy this by telling the player
that characters would remember certain things that they were told. Pushing this
kind of system might be the key to achieving satisfying choice. By giving NPCs
better memories of how the player has treated or interacted with them in the past,
players will be able to see the consequences of their actions far later in the game.

Game Mechanics and Dialogue

A dangerous pitfall in the design of dialogue is making certain choices
unquestionably better than others. Unfortunately, this what choice intuitively
makes a player think about, choosing the path that yields the greatest reward, also
known as optimizing. If certain dialogue choices are doubtlessly more advantageous
than others, then players will be conditioned to always make those choices,
essentially removing any choice from the process. This is true in games with
morality such as Knights of the Old Republic or Mass Effect, where you gain much
better options down the road if you stick to just one path. While keeping track of a
player characters personality might be an interesting metric for a player to look up

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

9
(such as a graph that shows them how often they choose amusing and sarcastic
responses over benevolent and kind responses) this should exist only for the sake
roleplaying. If there is a carrot on the end of the stick, such as unlocking gameplay
bonuses for being sarcastic for the majority of the game, then players who want to
squeeze every drop of potential out of their character will do so at the cost of being
able to make the choices that they really want their character to make.
An example of a game giving you free reign over characterization and choices
is Dragon Age II, which separated big decision moments, such as siding with one
faction over the other, from moral or character choice. The symbols that suggested
what kind of action you would be taking with each dialogue option would be absent
from choices such as these, as if to say that the game didnt want to comment on
what was right or wrong, leaving that to the players discretion. This meant that
players could have a free space to make the main character who they wanted them
to be instead of worrying about filling a behind the scenes meter with good or evil
points.
Alpha Protocol takes a very interesting and unique approach to dialogue,
where it encourages a player to use their optimization tendencies to advance the
plot naturally. The premise is that the player character is an expert secret agent. As
such they are expected to be able to pull peoples strings and understand their
profile in order to get what they want out of them. While there are three distinct
options to choose from in most dialogues casual, aggressive, and professional
respectfully a player isnt expected to pick one and run through the whole game
with it. Instead an early tutorial teaches the player that they can access the psych
profiles of the people they meet, and with a little reading up on their preferences,

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

10
they can assess how to talk to the person in such a way that will get them on their
good side. The reason that the creators pull this off is because they force you to
change up your tactics and personality on the fly, meaning that you need to learn to
adapt your interactions for the highest rewards. Its a clever way to turn optimizing
into a legitimately compelling mechanic while also staying true to a players ability
to choose; all the choices are based off of your educated guess from researching
other characters.

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

11
Deus Ex is another game that tries to use game mechanics in a beneficial
way for dialog. In a similar fashion to Alpha Protocol, it has persuasion bosses who

must be talked to in order for the player to get what they need. Based on the NPCs
reactions and psych profile, the player must make rational judgments about how to
go about talking to a person. This makes the player really listen to what the NPC is
saying and pick up on cues that might have slipped by if they were just bruteforcing their way through the dialogue. The Walking Dead uses a timer to limit the
amount of processing time a player is allowed to commit to decision making, and
thus create more authentic-feeling moments of tension and snap judgments. Based
on examples like these, we can see that it is possible for games to successfully
merge game mechanics into dialog systems without sacrificing player agency.

Final Thoughts

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

12
Some of the biggest detriments of dialogue systems in games appear to be
balancing the thin line between streamlining the narrative flow and giving the
player more agency. Given a players choice-driven behavior to satisfice and
optimize, creators need to put a limit on the number of choices available at any one
given time, instead spreading them out so that there are still ways for the player to
express themselves without the volume of options becoming overwhelming.
Game mechanics can effectively kill choice if the player builds a heuristic of
achieving rewards by following a strict style of play. Game mechanics should be
constructed with thought given to the dialogue and opportunities for the player to
pick what they want instead of what they feel they need. Ideally, the dialogue has
its own mechanics that encourage the player to engage in the conversations their
character is having, letting them make choices that get them to think and keep
them engaged in the experience.

DIALOGUE, CHOICE, AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH MECHANICS

13

References

Freed, A. (2014, September 9). Gamasutra. Retrieved from gamasutra.com:

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AlexanderFreed/20140909/225281/Branchin
g_Conversation_Systems_and_the_Working_Writer_Part_2_Design_Considerati
ons.php