Dialogs ystem i Datoriserade Rollspel En Jämförande Studie Dialogue Interfaces in CRPGs A Comparative Study Examensarbete inom huvudområdet Datavetenskap Grundnivå/ 30hp Vårtermin 2011 Miranda van den Brink Handledare: Jenny Brusk Examinator: Per Backlund Abstract The purpose of this thesis was to find whether the abstraction of dialogue responses in computerized role-playing games could affect role-players’ immersion, PC control, and the meaningfulness of play. Two versions of the same role-playing scenario were created and tested by a group of eight players who all had role-played previously. Though results show that both interfaces come with pros and cons neither interface was found to be superior for role-playing. Rather it was a question of players favoring different ways of being presented with information. A more extensive study with more respondents is necessary to find out if role-players in general prefer either. Key words: Role-play, RPG, Dialogue, Immersion, Meaningful play Table of Contents Table of contents ........................................................................................ i 1 Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 2 Background ........................................................................................... 3 2.1 Role-play in CRPGs ............................................................................................................. 3 2.2 Role-players on role-playing ............................................................................................... 4 2.3 Criteria for comparison ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3.1 PC control in CRPGs ......................................................................................................... 6 2.3.2 Meaningful play in CRPGs ................................................................................................ 7 2.3.3 Immersion and role-playing ............................................................................................... 8 2.4 Dialogue Interfaces in CRPGs .............................................................................................. 9 2.4.1 Dialogue in Mass Effect 2 ................................................................................................. 9 2.4.2 Dialogue in Dragon Age: Origins .................................................................................... 13 2.5 A comparison ...................................................................................................................... 13 2.5.1 Speech act theory ............................................................................................................. 14 2.5.2 PC control ....................................................................................................................... 16 2.5.3 Meaningful play ............................................................................................................... 18 2.5.4 Immersion ........................................................................................................................ 20 3 Problem formulation ........................................................................... 22 3.1 Hypotheses ......................................................................................................................... 22 3.2 Anticipated results .............................................................................................................. 23 3.3 Method ................................................................................................................................ 24 3.4 Abstract responses .............................................................................................................. 24 3.5 Collecting data .................................................................................................................... 25 3.6 Analyzing data .................................................................................................................... 26 3.7 Respondents ........................................................................................................................ 26 3.8 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 26 4 Procedure ............................................................................................. 28 4.1 The Deal ............................................................................................................................. 31 4.2 Decision and choice in The Deal ........................................................................................ 33 4.3 Character creation ............................................................................................................... 34 5 Results and Evaluation ....................................................................... 36 i 5.1 The players ......................................................................................................................... 36 5.2. Results ................................................................................................................................ 36 5.2.1 PC control ........................................................................................................................ 36 5.2.2 Predefined or undefined PC ............................................................................................. 38 5.2.3 Expressing personality ..................................................................................................... 39 5.2.4 Meaningful Play ............................................................................................................... 39 5.2.5 Immersion ........................................................................................................................ 44 5.2.6 Player motivation ............................................................................................................. 46 5.2.7 First and second play-through .......................................................................................... 46 5.3 Evaluation .......................................................................................................................... 48 6 Conclusion ............................................................................................ 50 6.1 Results summary ................................................................................................................ 50 6.2 Discussion ........................................................................................................................... 52 6.3 Future research ................................................................................................................... 52 References .............................................................................................. 53 7 Appendix I: Interview questions ........................................................ 57 ii 1 Introduction Dialogue between a player’s character and NPCs (non-player characters) in the game world is central to role-playing games because it can serve as a way for players to express personality and act out a role. Different CRPGs (computerized role-playing games) present players with dialogue in different manners, using different interfaces. One popular model, used in CRPGs such as Dragon Age: Origins (Bioware, 2009) and Vampire The Masquerade: Bloodlines (Troika Games, 2004) is the sentence selection interface. In a sentence selection interface players choose from a list of responses the PC can say. Upon choosing an alternative the PC will say the line that has been displayed in the list of alternatives and the NPC will respond. Another interface, which has grown in popularity lately, is the abstract- response interface. In abstract- response interfaces players choose from abstract representations of what the PC will say rather than the exact lines the PC says. Depending on the level of abstraction these representations can consist of anything from summaries of what the PC is going to say to actions describing the intent of what the PC is going to say such as ‘tell joke’ or ‘give compliment’. In the CRPG Mass Effect (Bioware, 2010) players choose mainly from summaries. Once they have chosen a summary they feel represents what they want the PC to say the PC says a corresponding line to which the NPC responds. A study has already been made (Sali et al., 2010) in which a sentence selection interface was compared to an abstract response interface. The two interfaces were found to have different pros and cons. The purpose of this study is to compare a sentence selection interface with an abstract response interface using a different level of abstraction than the one used in Sali et al.’s study and to study how they affect role-playing in terms of meaningful play, engagement and control. The dialogue options in the abstract response interface are short phrases which consist only of summaries of what the PC will say and no actions. A similar model has been used in contemporary CRPGs Mass Effect I, Mass Effect II and Dragon Age II (Bioware, 2011). In order to research the relationship between meaningful play, control, engagement and the abstraction of dialogue in CRPGs, a study with eight participants was conducted researching the following hypotheses: Players have more control over their